Lesoon v. United States, 153 F.3d 727, 10th Cir. (1998)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsLesoon v. United States, 153 F.3d 727, 10th Cir. (1998)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsF I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
JUL 15 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
EDWARD LESOON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 97-8105
(D.C. No. 97-CV-015-D)
(D. Wyo.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Edward Lesoon, proceeding pro se, appeals the district courts
order dismissing his action brought against the United States for various
constitutional and statutory violations in connection with his tax deficiency for
the 1991 tax year. The district court determined that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over plaintiffs constitutional and statutory claims because he had
previously filed a petition with the Tax Court disputing the tax imposed for the
1991 tax year. The district court also ruled that plaintiff failed to state a claim for
relief pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, 26 U.S.C. 7433. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.
We review de novo the district courts dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Owen v. Magaw, 122 F.3d 1350, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997). Our
review of an order of dismissal for failure to state a claim also is de novo. See
Witt v. Roadway Express, 136 F.3d 1424, 1431 (10th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed the parties briefs, the district courts order, and the
record on appeal. Upon de novo review, we affirm the district courts order
dismissing plaintiffs claims for substantially the reasons stated in the order
granting defendants motion to dismiss dated September 22, 1997.
Defendant United States of America has requested imposition of sanctions
for pursuing this frivolous appeal. Plaintiff has responded to the sanctions
request. See Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1515 (10th Cir. 1987) (notice
-2-
and an opportunity to respond required before imposing sanctions). The district
court cautioned plaintiff against pursuing his frivolous claims in this case. We
determine that plaintiffs arguments on appeal are legally frivolous. Therefore,
we impose sanctions against plaintiff Edward Lesoon in the amount of $1,500, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1912 and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, for the reasons stated in Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906
(10th Cir. 1986) (imposing flat fee of $1,500 as sanction in frivolous tax appeal).
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming is AFFIRMED. The governments Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED
in the amount of $1,500. All other pending motions are DENIED. The mandate
shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-
