U.S. v. Thomassen

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer H. THOMASSEN; Joan…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 22, 2001

4 F. App'x 481 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 481 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer H. THOMASSEN; Joan Thomassen, Defendants-Appellants. No. 99-56808. D.C. No. CV-78-01731-R. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 22, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001 ¹.

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Taxpayers moved to vacate renewal of judgment orders which district court had granted due to taxpayers' 1979 tax deficiency. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, Chief Judge, denied motion. Taxpayers appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) judgment orders which district court had granted due to taxpayers' 1979 tax deficiency and which were renewed in 1989 were not discharged by taxpayers' 1991 bankruptcy discharge order, and (2) taxpayers were not entitled to have district court judge removed.

Affirmed.

Page 482.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, Chief Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Elmer and Joan Thomassen appeal pro se the district court's order denying their motion to vacate its renewal of judgment orders which the district court had granted due to the Thomassens' 1979 tax deficiency. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the legal question whether the discharge in bankruptcy affected the judgment lien, see United States v. Hemmen, 51 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

The Thomassens contend that the 1979 judgment orders, which were renewed in 1989, were discharged by their 1991 bankruptcy discharge order. We disagree. Because the renewal of judgment orders were limited to the government's in rem rights against its pre-petition property interests, cf. Isom v. United States, (In re Isom), 901 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir.1990), the district court properly denied the Thomassens' motion to vacate the renewal of the judgment orders.

We also disagree with the Thomassens' contention that Judge Real should have been disqualified from this case. The Thomassens failed to show that Judge Real was biased against them from an extrajudicial source. See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir.1980).

The Thomassens' other contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.