Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 878 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1989)

James L. JENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-1664.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 1989* .Decided June 23, 1989.

Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HUG, SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

James L. Jensen appeals pro se the district court's grant of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) motion for summary judgment on Jensen's request to compel the IRS to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and any provisions of the United States Constitution.

Jensen had filed a suit in district court to compel the IRS to comply with his FOIA request, which demanded, in part, that the IRS furnish Jensen those statutes and executive orders which required him to file income tax returns.

We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion.

Jensen also contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in deciding his case because the judge's payment of federal income taxes diminished his salary in violation of Art. III, Sec. 1 of the United States Constitution. Absent exceptional circumstances, an issue not raised below will not be considered on appeal. United States v. State of Oregon, 769 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir. 1985). No such exceptional circumstances exist here, and we therefore decline to address this issue.

The IRS' request that we impose sanctions against Jensen for filing a frivolous appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.