James Arthur Luecke and Talia Delcarmen Luecke v. David Casey, Secretary of the...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN _________________________________________________________________________________ JAMES ARTHUR LUECKE and TALIA DELCARMEN LUECKE, Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 26-cv-14-wmc DAVID CASEY, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, in his official capacity; HEATHER M. MORRISSEY, in her official and personal capacities; SAUNDRA (last name unknown), in her official and personal capacities; and KRISTINE (last name unknown), in her official and personal capacities, Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________________ Representing themselves, plaintiffs James and Talia Luecke filed suit against several individual defendants employed by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (“DOR”), concerning efforts to collect delinquent state taxes. On May 7, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. ##34-35.) Plaintiffs have now filed motions for relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b)(4), and 60(b)(6), noting that the U.S. Treasury Department recently seized additional funds to collect delinquent state taxes on DOR’s behalf by intercepting their federal tax refund under the “Treasury Offset Program.” (Dkt. ##36-37.) The motions for relief from the judgment are DENIED. Plaintiffs have neither shown that the dismissal order was entered in error, nor provided any legal authority supporting finding that this court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over: their claims against the defendants; or any new claim concerning the seizure of their federal tax refund. See Shadoan v. U.S., No. 20-cv-2538, 2021 WL 5235112, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Nov.

8, 2021) (“[O]nce a tax refund has been reduced by an amount to pay a federal agency or a state taxing authority, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ claim.”) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g); Ivy v. Comm’r of the Internal Revenue Serv., 197 F. Supp. 3d 139, 142 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d, 877 F.3d 1048 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

Moreover, plaintiffs do not otherwise establish that their federal tax refund was seized without adequate due process for reasons articulated by the defendants. (Dkt. #42, at 2- 3.) Finally, for these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for a settlement conference or referral to alternative dispute resolution (dkt. #39) is also DENIED.

Entered this 13th day of May, 2026.

BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge