Opinion ID: 585745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of Claims for Injunctive Relief

Text: 15 The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief as moot because the Cadillac was returned to Washington. We review de novo a determination of mootness. EEOC v. Hacienda Hotal, 881 F.2d 1504, 1519 (9th Cir.1989). The central issue in all mootness questions is whether changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of the litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief. Goodwin v. United States, 935 F.2d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.1991). 16 The plaintiffs contend the return of the Cadillac did not moot their claims for injunctive relief. 4 We disagree. The return of the vehicle rendered meaningless all requests relating to the Cadillac's return or sale. Munson's claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 5 was rendered moot because relief is limited by statute to either an injunction or recovery of the property. See 26 U.S.C. § 7426(b). 17 The plaintiffs contend the return of the Cadillac did not moot their quiet title actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2410. 6 While not technically moot, the district court correctly dismissed these claims. A taxpayer may use section 2410 to challenge the procedural validity of a tax lien, but not to collaterally attack the merits of a tax assessment. Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.1992). Because Washington's procedural challenge was based upon fourth amendment and statutory claims that are without merit, her quiet title action must fail. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527-28 (9th Cir.1990) (meritless allegation of section 6303(a) violation failed to support section 2410 claim). Munson's quiet title action is barred because his exclusive remedy is a claim for a wrongful levy under section 7426. Winebrenner v. United States, 924 F.2d 851, 855 (9th Cir.1991). 7