N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JER OLD M . GOR SKI,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. INTER NAL REVENUE SER

VIC E, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-56617 D.C . No. 8:13-c v-00594-C JC -JPR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, SILVER M AN, a n d GR AB ER , C i rc uit Judge s. Je rold M . Gorski, a

n attorne y , a

ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in his ta

x re fund a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Unite d State s v . Pe ninsula C

ommc ’ns, Inc . , 287 F.3d 832, 836 (9th C ir. 2002) (dismissa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion); Fair 

# FIL ED N OV 04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Hous. C

ounc il of Riv e rside

C ty ., Inc . v . Riv e rside Tw o , 249 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th C ir. 2001) (sum

m a ry judgm e nt). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Gorski fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he is e n title d to re funds for tax y e ars 2007, 2008, a

nd 2010. Se e Unite d State s v . J anis , 428 U.S. 433, 440 (1976) (taxpa

y e r be ars burde n of proving a m ount he is e ntitle d to re c ove r). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Gorski’ s c la i m s for ne glige nc e and a c c ounting for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. S e e 26 U.S.C . § 7433(a) (taxpa y e r m ay bring c ivil a c tion for da

m a ge s only

for a spe c i fic sta

tutory or re gula tory viola tion); M ille r v . Unite d State

s , 66 F.3d 220, 223 (9th C ir. 1995) (taxpa y e r c annot se e k da

m a ge s for im

p rope r a sse ssm e nts); Latc h v . Unite d State s , 842 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th C ir. 1988) (fe de ra l c ourts ha ve no jurisdic t ion ove r suits for tax a c c ounting). Howeve r, we va c ate the judgm e nt to thee x te nt tha t it dism isse d the c la im s with pre judic e , a nd re m and for e ntry

of dism issa l without pre j udic e , inc luding thedism issa l of the re fund c la im for the tax y e ar 2009. Se e Fre e man v . Oak

land Unified Sc h. Dist. , 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th C ir. 1999) (dism i ssa ls for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion should be without pre

judic e ). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr by finding tha

t the m a gistra

te judge ha d prope rly de nie d Gorski’ s m otion to qua sh for fa iling to c om ply with theloc a l rule s.

1 4 - 5 6 6 1 7 2Se e Bias v . Moy n ihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th C ir. 2007) (distric t c ourt give n broa d de fe re nc e in inte rpre ting loc a l rule s); Riv e ra v . N IBC O, Inc . , 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th C ir. 2004) (sta

nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Gorski’ s e x pa

rte a pplic ation for a sta

y of de fe nda

nt’ s subpoe na

be c a use the subpoe n a

sought re le va nt, unprivile ge d i nform ation. Se e Re ise r e r v . Unite d State s , 479 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [T] he re is no privile ge be twe e n a ba nk a nd a de positor.” ); Matte l Inc . v . W alk ing Mountain Prods. , 353 F.3d 792, 813-14 (9th C ir. 2003) (re vie w ing de c ision to qua sh for a buse of disc re tion a

nd finding no a

buse whe n subpoe na wa s qua she d for se e king inform ation not re le v a n t to litiga

tion). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, inc l uding Gorski’ s c onte ntion tha t de fe n d ant is re ta lia

ting a ga inst him

due to a n e arlie r la

wsuit. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also Gre e nw ood v . F.A.A. , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ W e will not ma

nufa c ture argum e nts for a n a ppe lla n t, a nd a ba re a sse rtion doe s not pre se rve a

c la im [.] ” (c ita

tion omitte d)). Gorski’ s a

rgum e nts re ga

rding the ne e d

for a c ontinua nc e , his priva c y c onc e rns, privile ge , the ne e d for m ore disc ove ry , the c o nside ra tion of e x trinsic e vide nc e , a

nd sove re ign im

m unity are unpe rsua sive . 1 4 - 5 6 6 1 7 3The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 4 - 5 6 6 1 7 4