Court Opinion

ID: 9955865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 17:00:43.819275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:34.580678
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 29 2024
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN ALLEN STEEVES,                              No. 22-56170

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00838-WQH-DDL

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Dean Allen Steeves appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking to void notices of

deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Steeves’s action as barred by the Anti-

Injunction Act (“the Act”) because it is an attempt to restrain the IRS’s tax

assessment and collection activities, and no exception applies. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions); Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523, 525

(9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that the district court “must dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction any suit that does not fall within one of the exceptions to the

Act” and setting forth limited judicial exception).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-56170