Caldwell v. United States Tax Court

D.C. Circuit

Caldwell v. United States Tax Court

360 F. App'x 161

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 2010

DocketNo. 09-5166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 360 F. App'x 161 (Caldwell v. United States Tax Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldwell v. United States Tax Court, 360 F. App'x 161 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order of April 16, 2009, be affirmed. Appellant has waived his argument that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against the individual appellees based on his failure to effect proper service on them. See United States v. Law, 528 F.3d 888, 908 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.2008) (treating appellant’s “argument as waived because he failed to develop it”). Furthermore, to the extent that appellant has asserted constitutional claims against the United States Tax Court, they are foreclosed by FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (rejecting extension of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), to suits against federal agencies). Regarding appellant’s contention that the district court was biased in favor of the appellees, his allegations of bias arise merely out of adverse judicial rulings, and he has failed to show that Judge Kennedy has manifested a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would have rendered a fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (adverse judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for,a bias or partiality motion); Rafferty v. NYNEX Corp., 60 F.3d 844 (D.C.Cir.1995) (no bias shown where party failed to offer evidence to support his inferred bias from unfavorable judicial rulings and from court delays in ruling on pending motions).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order of April 16, 2009, be affirmed. Appellant has waived his argument that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against the individual appellees based on his failure to effect proper service on them. See United States v. Law, 528 F.3d 888, 908 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.2008) (treating appellant’s “argument as waived because he failed to develop it”). Furthermore, to the extent that appellant has asserted constitutional claims against the United States Tax Court, they are foreclosed by FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (rejecting extension of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), to suits against federal agencies). Regarding appellant’s contention that the district court was biased in favor of the appellees, his allegations of bias arise merely out of adverse judicial rulings, and he has failed to show that Judge Kennedy has manifested a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would have rendered a fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (adverse judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for,a bias or partiality motion); Rafferty v. NYNEX Corp., 60 F.3d 844 (D.C.Cir.1995) (no bias shown where party failed to offer evidence to support his inferred bias from unfavorable judicial rulings and from court delays in ruling on pending motions).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F. App'x 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-united-states-tax-court-cadc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack