78 F. 3d 598 - Trenerry v. Internal Revenue Service
78 F3d 598 Trenerry v. Internal Revenue Service
78 F.3d 598
Nancy L. TRENERRY, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant--Appellee.
No. 95-5150.
(D.C.No. 94-C-92-H)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 1, 1996.
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUGMENT1
Advertisement
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This appeal is from an order of the district court denying appellant Trenerry's motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment which was entered by the district court dismissing appellant's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pro se appellant Trenerry appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in finding that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and by not making a de novo determination of appellant's complaint. Appellant further alleges on appeal that she does not have an outstanding debt of $102.00 related to her 1992 FOIA request. We AFFIRM.
Plaintiff has filed a series of FOIA requests over approximately an eight year period. Appellee contends that appellant has an outstanding balance due of $102.00 for search costs related to previously requested FOIA documents and that upon the payment of this amount, the IRS would proceed with processing additional FOIA requests submitted by appellant in 1993 and thereafter. Through substantial correspondence between appellant and appellee, the record is devoid of any evidence that appellant has paid the outstanding amount to the IRS and further devoid of any evidence that appellant has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to clear directives from appellee. We agree with the district court that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action where plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The record makes clear that the procedures for exhaustion were clearly articulated to appellant and that payment of fees is clearly contemplated by the statute and the regulations.
We therefore affirm the order of the district court dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for substantially the reasons given by the district court. AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3