2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-23-2015

In Re: James Platts

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: James Platts" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 650.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/650
DLD-246 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1900

___________

IN RE: JAMES C. PLATTS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States Tax Court

(Related to No. 006180-07 L)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

June 18, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 23, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

James C. Platts has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, he 

presents details of his dispute with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) dating back to at 

least 1999. To summarize briefly, Platts states that he made payments to the IRS in order 

to release disputed tax liens, pending the resolution of the disputes. He contends that the 

IRS cashed his payments without crediting those funds to his taxpayer account, resulting 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

in an overpayment to the IRS totaling approximately $200,000.00. Platts also alleges that 

his requests for hearings under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 were ignored, depriving him of due 

process. In 2007, Platts filed a Tax Court petition against the Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue to present his claim for the overpayment. The Commissioner filed a motion to 

dismiss on mootness grounds, which Platts characterizes as a fraudulent 

misrepresentation to the Tax Court. The Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s motion 

and dismissed the case in December 2007. Platts asserts that he did not receive timely 

notice of the dismissal, depriving him of the opportunity to appeal to this Court. Thus, 

Platts seeks an order to compel the Tax Court to vacate its dismissal order, reopen his 

case, and grant an evidentiary hearing regarding payments made and balances owed to 

either party. Platts further suggests that the Tax Court should consolidate his reopened 

case with his currently pending Tax Court matter.

Platts invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1651 in seeking mandamus relief. Section 1651 

confers jurisdiction on this Court to issue a writ of mandamus “in aid of” our jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Upon review of the docket in the Tax Court case at issue here, we 

note that the Tax Court directed Platts to respond to the Commissioner’s motion to 

dismiss, and, having received no response by the stated deadline, the Tax Court dismissed 

the case in 2007. We also note that more than six years passed before Platts filed a 

motion to vacate the dismissal order, which the Tax Court denied in March 2014. Given 

that the underlying matter in the Tax Court has been dismissed and has not been 

reopened, and there is no longer any possibility that our appellate jurisdiction may attach, 
3

there is no action as to which a writ of mandamus might aid our jurisdiction. See United 

States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1981) (explaining that, “[b]efore 

entertaining” a petition for a writ of mandamus, “we must identify a jurisdiction that the 

issuance of the writ might assist,” including appellate jurisdiction “at some future time”). 

Because Platts seeks an order to compel action by the Tax Court in his dismissed tax 

matter, we find that issuing a writ of mandamus is not “necessary or appropriate in aid 

of” our jurisdiction within the meaning of § 1651(a). Accordingly, we must deny the 

petition.

Further, mandamus is an “extraordinary” and “drastic” form of relief. See In re 

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2005). Even when a 

petitioner shows the absence of other adequate means to obtain the requested relief, and 

also establishes a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, our exercise of 

mandamus power is largely discretionary. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 

219 (3d Cir. 2003). Under the circumstances of this case, we would decline to exercise 

our mandamus power to grant extraordinary relief.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.