Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03233/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane Wendall Larson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3233

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota

Duane Wendall Larson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2004

Filed: June 8, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Duane Larson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for

the District of Minnesota denying his motion for a writ of mandamus. For reversal,

Larson argues that the district court erred in finding res judicata barred his claim that

the government breached its plea agreement with him in a tax-evasion prosecution

against him, see Larson v. United States, 835 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Cir. 1987), cert.

denied, 486 U.S. 1056 (1988), by later seizing money from two of his bank accounts,

see Larson v. United States, 274 F.3d 643, 644 (1st Cir. 2001). Although the

Appellate Case: 03-3233 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2004 Entry ID: 1775108 
-2-

government ultimately returned the seized money, see id., Larson sought “lost

imputed interest costs.” For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.

Specifically, we agree with the district court that Larson’s action is barred by

res judicata, as his breach-of-contract claim was denied by the Court of Federal

Claims, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals found that he was not entitled to

recover interest on the seized money. See id. at 645-48; Lundquist v. Rice Mem’l

Hosp., 238 F.3d 975, 977 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (elements of res judicata). To

the extent Larson seeks relief under the Fourth Amendment unrelated to the recovery

of lost interest, such relief is not appropriately sought by motion for a writ of

mandamus in his criminal tax-evasion case. Finally, we reject Larson’s argument that

he is entitled to costs and fees, because he is not the prevailing party in this litigation.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2412; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3233 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2004 Entry ID: 1775108