descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lindsey K. Springer v. Paul A. Bischoff, Leella J. Bischoff, Harold D. Boos, Michelle D. Brashier, Dowell N. Buckner, Lawrence M. Buckner, Ronald Wayne Buck, Suzanne Buck, Thomas M. Burton, Russell L. Dark, Tom D. Davenport, Jeanne J. Davenport, Dennis Dazey, Carol D. Dazey, Charles D. Hathaway, Judy E. Hathaway, Robert L. Huffman, Norma W. Huffman, John P. Krueger, James L. Lambert, Stephanie v. Krueger, Vernon L. Noah, Marlene D. Noah, Marcus Craig, Jan R. Oswalt, William D. Perry, Georgia M. Perry, Jeffrey A. Robbins, Cynthia K. Robbins, Jonathan C. Shannon, Gaylord D. Snitker, Sandra W. Snitker, Jim A. Spargur, Barbara J. Sparks, John N. Teel, James R. Timmons, Jim H. Waggoner, Wanda J. Waggoner, Kenton D. Whitham, Jean D. Whitham, Melvin D. Whitham, Reta M. Whitham, Rodney K. Williams, Anetta L. Williams, David Wollman, Aline Wollman, James E. Turner, Marsha R. Turner, Robert D. Hembree v. Internal Revenue Service, Sued As: Collector of Internal Revenue John Doe, Sued as John Does I Through 10, Lindsey K

Citations: 81 F.3d 173; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21293Docket: 95-5072

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; April 8, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellants, led by Lindsey K. Springer, challenged the dismissal of their claims against the IRS by the district court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that only Springer, representing himself pro se, could continue with the appeal as per local rules requiring all plaintiffs to sign the appeal brief. The court upheld the district court's decision to substitute the United States as the correct defendant, citing compliance with sections 26 U.S.C. § 7422(f)(2) and § 7433(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The appellate court found Springer's claims to be without merit and imposed a $2,000 sanction against him for pursuing frivolous appeals after he failed to respond to the government's motion for sanctions. The court dismissed all other motions and affirmed the lower court's decision, as explained in its earlier order. This decision does not serve as binding precedent except under certain conditions defined by local rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

Pro Se Representation and Signature Requirements

Application: The court only allowed the appeal to proceed for the plaintiff representing himself because none of the other plaintiffs signed the brief.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that only Springer, who was representing himself (pro se), could proceed with the appeal since none of the other plaintiffs signed the brief, which is a requirement under local rules.

Sanctions for Frivolous Appeals

Application: Sanctions were imposed against the plaintiff for pursuing frivolous appeals, as he failed to respond to the government's motion for sanctions.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court imposed sanctions of $2,000 against him in lieu of costs and attorney fees.

Substitution of the United States as Defendant

Application: The district court correctly substituted the United States as the defendant according to specific tax code provisions.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court's decision, noting that it properly substituted the United States as the correct defendant pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422(f)(2) and § 7433(a).