Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
John L. DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.John M. GRAY, Bud Case, other unknown Agents of the InternalRevenue Service, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 1988.* Decided June 26, 1989.
Hon. Jack E. Tanner, District Judge, Presiding.
Before NELSON, NOONAN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
John L. Dean (Dean) appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief to restrain the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from proceeding with the sale of Dean's condominium in order to meet Dean's unpaid tax assessments. The district court's order was issued two days after the sale of the property in question was completed. Dean contends that the district court erred in denying him the relief he sought because the government lacked jurisdiction over him due to his non-taxpayer status, because there was no lawful assessment of his tax liability and because he was entitled to mandamus relief. Additionally, Dean appeals the district court's denial of his demand that Judge Tanner recuse himself on the grounds that Tanner was biased against Dean. The government requests sanctions on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed. First, this appeal is moot as to the request for injunctive relief because the act Dean sought to have enjoined has already occurred. See Holloway v. United States, 789 F.2d 1372, 1374 (9th Cir. 1986). Second, Dean's suit was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, and because it does not fall into the statutory or judicial exceptions to the Act, it was properly dismissed by the district court. See Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736-37 (1974). Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dean's motion for the recusal of Judge Tanner because Dean failed to offer any factual evidence in support of his conclusory allegations of prejudice. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986).
Dean has motioned this court for the recusal of several justices who have sat on the various panels which have heard his appeals and motions in the past. He contends that these justices have exhibited prejudice towards him by their prior rulings on his actions. Because Dean fails to show an extrajudicial source for the alleged prejudice of these justices, his motion for recusal is denied. See Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). The government's request for sanctions on appeal is denied.