James Mozingo v. Douglas Shulman, No. 08-2361 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2361 JAMES JOSEPH MOZINGO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, Commissioner, Internal Revenue, Respondent - Appellee. On Petitions for Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus. (XXX-XX-6194) Submitted: March 24, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Mozingo, Petitioner/Appellant Pro Se. Christine Durney Mason, David I. Pincus, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Joseph Mozingo filed in this court a document, titled Petition Administrative for Judicial Agency. In Review it, he of Determination challenged the by Notice of Federal Tax Lien filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and sought a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that The this court does not have jurisdiction to directly review the issuance of a notice of federal tax lien. To the extent that Mozingo wishes for this court to review the Notice of Federal Tax Lien or the Commissioner s determination of Mozingo s tax liability, we lack jurisdiction to do so and grant the motion to dismiss in part. construe See 28 U.S.C. Mozingo s §§ filing 1291, 2342(3) as petition a (2006). filed Because within we this court s original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006), we deny in part the motion to dismiss and address the filing as a petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus. A writ of prohibition will not issue unless it clearly appears that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 176 (1886). A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy which should be granted only where the petitioner s right to the requested relief is clear and indisputable. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th 2 Cir. 1983); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981). Further, a writ of prohibition should be granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief. In re Banker s Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985). Here, we find that Mozingo has not established that he has a clear right to the relief he seeks. other means by which Accordingly, to the to challenge extent that Moreover, Mozingo has the federal Mozingo tax seeks a lien. writ of prohibition, we deny the petition. Mozingo alternatively requested that this court issue a writ of mandamus requiring the Commissioner to provide him with documents, records, and authorities determination of his tax liability. to support the Mozingo has failed to show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, as required for the granting of mandamus relief. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Moreover, as stated above, Mozingo has other means to obtain the relief he seeks. Thus, mandamus relief is not warranted. See In re United Steelworkers of Am., 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). In conclusion, we grant in part and deny in part the Commissioner s motion to dismiss, and we deny petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus. Mozingo s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 4
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.
