2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-27-2005 

# Thom a s v . IRS P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1357

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Thom as v . I RS " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 327. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/327NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 1357

________________ BR I A N W . TH O M A S, A ppel l ant v. I N TER N A L R EV EN U E SER V I CE ; D EN N I S PA RI ZEK , A ge ntof the I RS, b o th in h is in d iv id u a l an d o f f icia l ca p a c ity

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 03- cv- 02080) D i s t r i ctJ udge: J ames M . M unl ey

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember20, 2005 Be f o r e : REN DELL, AM BRO AN D FU ENTES, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2005)

_ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM B ria n T h o m a s a p p e a ls th e o rd e rs o f th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng t he def endant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s hi s Fr eedom of I nform at i on A ct( “FO I A ”) compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, and deny i ngT h o m a s’s m o tio n s f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , fo r R u le 6 0 (b ) re lief , an d f o r re c u sa l. T he under l y i ng fac t s ar e w el l - know n t o t he part i es and ar e ful l ys etfor t h i n t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s M em o ran d u m O p inion . W e n ee d o n lyp rov ide a su m m aryh ere . In N ovember2003, T hom as fi l ed a FO I A compl ai ntagai ns tthe I R S se eki ng t o compel t he pr oduct i on of ce r t ai n r ecor ds and t apes pert ai ni ng t o hi m . T he I R S m oved t o di s m i s s t he compl ai ntcl ai m i ng, among ot hert hi ngs , thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s ubj ectm at t er j u r i s d i c t i o n d u e t o T h o ma s ’ s f a i l u r e t o e x h a u s th i s a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e me d i e s . On N ov em ber 2, 20 04 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed the di sm i ssal m oti on and dis m i ssed the case forl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. O n N ovember10, 2004, T hom as fi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on N ovember16, 2004. U ndet err ed, T hom as fi l ed a mot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm enton D ece m ber15, 2004, s eeki ng t o vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng the compl ai nt . T he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed the mot i on on D ece m ber16, 2004, rul i ng thatT hom as pr es ent ed no new evi dence and poi nt ed t o no i nt erveni ng change i n t he l aw r equi r i ng r el i ef f r om j udgm ent u n d er R u le 60 (b). Sp ec ifi ca ll y , the D istri ct C o u rth eld th at th e d ism issal of T h o m as’s FO I A compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es di d noti nfr i nge upon T h o m a s ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to p e titio n th e G o v e rn m e n t f o r r e d re s s o f

g ri e v a n c e s . O n J a n u a ry 3 , 2 0 0 5 , T h o m a s f ile d a m o tio n s e e k in g th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ju d g e ’s re c u s a l. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on on J anuary14, 2005, fi ndi ng thata hi s t oryof rul i ngs adver s e t o T hom as w as i ns uffi ci entgr ounds forr ecus al . T hom as fi l ed a not i ce of appea l on February4, 2005.T h e A p p ell ee s raise the thresh o ld q u esti o n o f ju ri sd ict ion to co n side r th e o rde rs

ent er ed N ovember2 and N ovember16, 2004. O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s that T h o m a s’s n o tice o f

a p p e a l f ro m th e o rd e r d ism iss in g th e p e tit io n f o r re m o v a l is c lea rly unt i m el yunderFed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) , as i tw as fi l ed al m os tone mont h t oo l at e. T he t i m e- per i od pr es cr i bed forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l i s “mandat oryand j ur i s di ct i onal . ” B r ow derv. D i r ect orof D ep’ tof C orr . , 434 U . S. 257, 264 ( 1978) . I n a ci vi l cas e i n w hi ch t he U ni t ed St at es i s a part y , a not i ce of appea l m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n s i xty( 60) day s of the dat e of e nt r yof the fi nal j udgm entoror derappea l ed. Fed. R . A pp. P. 3( A ) , 4( a) ( 1) ; 28 U . S . C . § 2 1 0 7 . O n N o v em b er 2 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed T h o m as’s F O IA compl ai ntforl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. A ppel l ant ’ s t i m el yfi l ed r econs i der at i on m ot i on t ol l ed t he appe al s per i od unt i l N ovember16, 2004, w hen the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed re c o n sid e ra tio n . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )(4 ). A p p e llan t h a d u n til Ja n u a ry1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , to fi l e a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l . A ppel l antdi d notfi l e a not i ce of appea l unt i l February4, 2 0 0 5 , ab o u t 2 6 d a y s a f

ter e n tryo f

ju d g m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , g iv e n th e a b se n c e o f a tim e ly fi l ed not i ce of

appea l , t he appe al of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s N ovember2 and N ovember16, 2004 or der s i s di s m i s s ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. T hom as ’ s appea l of the deni al of the m o tio n s to v a c a te a n d f o r re c u sa l is tim e ly , h o w e v e r, an d th u s, w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to con si der the ap peal of t hese orders. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and ourr evi ew of the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g T h o m a s ’s R u le 6 0 (b ) o n c o n s titu tio n a l g ro u n d s is p le n a ry. K os hatka v. Phi l adel phi a N ew s paper s , I nc. , 762 F. 2d 329, 333 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . O urr evi ew of the or derdeny i ng r ecus al i s forabus e of di s cr et i on. Secur acomm C ons ul t i ng,

Inc . v . S ec u rac o m Inc . , 2 2 4 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A ft era ca r eful and i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C o u rt o rd e r d e n y in g R u le 6 0 (b ) re lief f o r th e re a so n s s tate d b yth e D istric t C o u rt in its m em o ran d u m o p inion . A s fo r T h o m as’s m o ti o n to rec u se, w e f ind n o thing in the rec o rd t o i ndi cat e thatt he D i s t r i ctJ udge i n T hom as ’ s cas e w as bi as ed aga i ns thi m beca us e he w as pr o s e. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ynot ed, m er e di s agr eementw i t h t he D i s t r i ct Co u r t ’ s a d v e r s e ru l i n g s d o e s n o tf o r m a s u f

f i c i e n tb a s i s f

o rr e c u s a l . S e e S e c u r a c o mm, 224 F. 3d at278. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s ent er ed D ece m ber16, 2004, and J anuary14, 2005.