Benoit
United States v. Benoit
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael Benoit appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the petition of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to enforce summonses and denying Benoit’s motion for recusal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7604 (a), and personal jurisdiction over Benoit, who was personally served with the petition and summonses. See Burnham v. Superior Court, 495 U.S. 604, 610-12 , 110 S.Ct. 2105 , 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (holding that personal seivice in a state is sufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction).
The district court did not commit clear error by enforcing the summonses because the proof of service indicates that Benoit was personally served with the summons in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7603 . Further, the IRS has the authority to investigate Benoit’s tax liability under 26 U.S.C. § 7602 (a).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Benoit’s motion for recusal challenging the judge’s prior rulings. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986) (explaining that “a…