COMPLAINT AGAINST IRS EMPLOYEE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[1] Before the Court are sundry motions filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant, seeking various forms of redress. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The defendant's motion to substitute the United States as the proper party defendant in this action (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. Although the plaintiff claims to sue Mr. O'Neal in his "individual" rather than "official" capacity, the plaintiff's complaint does not allege how Mr. O'Neal, an officer of the Internal Revenue Service, exceeded the authority conferred to him by the applicable statute, 26 U.S.C. section 6323(a). Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot establish individual liability against Mr. O'Neal. "A suit against . . . IRS employees in their official capacities is, in essence, a suit against the United States." Rosado v. Curtis, 885 F. Supp. 1538, 1542 (M.D. Fla. 1995), aff'd, 84 F.3d 437 (11th Cir. 1996). Because the plaintiff sues the defendant for actions taken in his official capacity within the limits of his statutory authority, the United States is the proper party defendant in this action.

2. Docs. 5, 19, and 24 (each construed by the Court as a motion to remand) are DENIED. The defendant timely and properly removed this action, and the Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. See 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1346.

3. The plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction (Doc. 9) is DENIED. The plaintiff's motion wholly fails to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) and (d) and Local Rule 4.05.

4. The plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 21) and for oral argument is DENIED.

5. The defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. The plaintiff's suit is premised upon Florida Statute, Sections 713.21 and 713.22. ¹ However, the United States has not expressly waived its sovereign immunity with respect to suit initiated pursuant to this state law. See Rosado, 885 F. Supp. at 1542 ("The United States is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived its immunity and has consented to suit."). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

6. Doc. 22 is DENIED as MOOT.

[2] The Clerk is directed to close this case and terminate all pending motions.

[3] ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 31, 2000.

                                   Steven d. Merryday