1

The Honorable James C. England, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3991

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Robert J. Rima, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2007

 Filed: December 19, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This action originated when the United States, acting on behalf of the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), petitioned the district court to enforce two IRS summonses

issued to Robert J. Rima pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602. After multiple hearings and

failed settlement negotiations, the Magistrate Judge1

 issued a Report and

Recommendation finding that the summonses were properly issued and

recommending that the petition to enforce the summonses be granted. The District
2

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Court2

 adopted the Report and Recommendation and ordered Rima to comply with the

summonses by November 3, 2006. Rima filed a motion for reconsideration, which the

District Court denied. On November 3, 2006, Rima met with an IRS agent; answered

the agent's questions, from which the agent completed a collection information

statement (IRS Form 433); permitted the agent to photocopy his credit card; and

provided the agent a photocopy of what Rima's attorney labeled at oral argument "a

transcript from an investment agency." At a hearing before the District Court that

same day, the government reported that "the IRS has the information that they need"

and moved to dismiss the enforcement action. Transcript of Nov. 3, 2006, Hearing

at 4. Rima consented to dismissal. The District Court dismissed the case with

prejudice on November 6, 2006. Rima now appeals the District Court's denial of his

motion for reconsideration of the order granting the petition to enforce the

summonses.

The government has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing that the

appeal is moot because the District Court dismissed with prejudice the summons

enforcement action. Our jurisdiction extends only to actual "cases" and

"controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; see also Beck v. Mo. High Sch. Activities

Ass'n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ("Article III of the United States

Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases and

controversies."). We do not have jurisdiction to review a district court's summons

enforcement order if "an intervening event has rendered the controversy moot."

Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 15 (1992). In this case,

we believe that the "intervening event" of the District Court's dismissal of the
3

The "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness

doctrine, Roberts v. Norris, 415 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2005), does not apply because

the District Court's dismissal was with prejudice.

4

The issues presented by Rima on appeal involve whether the IRS provided him

an appropriate assessment of his tax liabilities, as required by an order of the

Magistrate Judge. Rima's attorney acknowledged at oral argument that we cannot

reach these issues if we lack jurisdiction.

-3-

summons enforcement action has rendered this appeal moot.3

 Quite simply, there is

no case or controversy that remains for us to decide.

Rima argues that under the decision in Church of Scientology, the appeal is not

moot because we could order the IRS to return the three documents that Rima

provided on November 3, 2006. In Church of Scientology, the Supreme Court ruled

that turning over material in compliance with a district court's order enforcing an IRS

summons is not an intervening event that renders the appeal of the district court's

order moot. 506 U.S. at 13 (noting that the appellate court could effectuate a partial

remedy by ordering the IRS to either return or destroy material in the IRS's

possession). Thus, this case was not mooted by Rima's compliance with the District

Court's summons enforcement order. Had that been the end of activity at the districtcourt level, we would have jurisdiction over the appeal. But the parties subsequently

appeared before the District Court and requested dismissal of the case. It is the

District Court's dismissal with prejudice of the summons enforcement action that

renders the controversy moot.4

 

This case is dismissed.

______________________________