Case Name: Frank EVERSOLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 690 F. App'x 469
Docket Number: No. 16-35035
Parties: Frank EVERSOLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
Frank EVERSOLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35035
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 25, 2017
Frank Eversole, Pro Se
Paul Andrew Allulis, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, Yael Bortnick, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Di vision/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Sherra Wong, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Frank Eversole appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that the Internal Revenue Service illegally levied his Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Eversole's action because the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to levy Eversole's Social Security disability insurance benefits. See 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a) (enumerating property exempt from levy for taxes); id. § 6334(c) (providing that no other property is exempt from levy other than property enumerated in subsection (a)); see also id. § 6331(a) (Secretary has the power to levy property and rights to property if a person is liable for unpaid taxes, and federal payments can be levied).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued at the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.