Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseFrank Austin ENGLAND, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-15417.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 22, 1990.* Decided Sept. 5, 1990.
Before WILLIAM A. NORRIS, WIGGINS and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
England appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.1 He asserts that the requirement that he pay federal taxes is a sufficient restraint on his liberty to warrant habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is wrong. We affirm.
We review the dismissal of England's habeas petition de novo. Carter v. McCarthy, 806 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 870 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), we may only entertain petitions filed by individuals "in custody." In Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6 (9th Cir. 1987), we held that a criminal sentence requiring a defendant to pay a fine does not meet the "in custody" requirement. Id. at 7. The requirement of paying taxes is even less burdensome than the requirement of paying a criminal fine. Thus, England is not "in custody" for purposes of section 2241. The district court did not err in dismissing his habeas petition with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
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
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. We therefore deny England's motion for oral argument
England has filed a motion to file an addendum. Given our disposition of the case, we deny this motion as moot
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.
