Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05179/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Beard
Appellee
Robert V. Justice
Appellant
John A. Koskinen
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5179 September Term, 2015

1:15-cv-00622-RDM

Filed On: September 8, 2016

Robert V. Justice,

Appellant

v.

John A. Koskinen, Commissioner of the

Internal Revenue Service and Jeffrey Beard,

Dr., Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to

enlarge the record, the opposition thereto, the notice filed March 30, 2016, and the letter

filed June 27, 2016, it is

ORDERED that the motion to enlarge the record be denied. This court generally

does not consider evidence presented for the first time on appeal, and no injustice will

result from declining to consider the letter at issue here. See United States ex rel. Davis

v. District of Columbia, 679 F.3d 832, 837 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 2012). It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June

16, 2015, be affirmed. The district court dismissed appellant’s action without prejudice

for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order. Appellant does not address the

dismissal for failure to comply with the vexatious litigant order in his brief, except to

USCA Case #15-5179 Document #1634622 Filed: 09/08/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5179 September Term, 2015

assert in a conclusory fashion that a new issue concerning federal taxation and

jurisdiction over Avenal State Prison has rendered the district court’s judgment moot. 

However, appellant has waived the mootness argument by failing to develop it in his

brief. See, e.g., United States v. Law, 528 F.3d 888, 908 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). He has

also waived any other challenge to the dismissal by not raising it in his brief. See, e.g.,

Petit v. United States Department of Education, 675 F.3d 769, 779 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

Finally, we do not reach his argument concerning federal taxation and jurisdiction over

Avenal State Prison because he did not raise it in district court. See, e.g., District of

Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

2

USCA Case #15-5179 Document #1634622 Filed: 09/08/2016 Page 2 of 2