Court Opinion

ID: 9407910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 19:00:42.364723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.770589
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUL 10 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,                             No. 22-15760

                  Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 5:20-cv-03512-VKD

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the
Department of Treasury by its agency, the
Internal Revenue Service,

                  Defendant-Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of California
                 Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                              Submitted June 26, 2023***

Before:        CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

         Christopher Hadsell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment and dismissal order in his action brought under the Federal Tort Claims

   *
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
   **
      The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
   ***
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Act (“FTCA”) and 26 U.S.C. § 7433, stemming from the government’s application

of tax payments to offset Hadsell’s past-due child support debt. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Snyder & Assocs.

Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2017) (subject

matter jurisdiction); Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012)

(summary judgment). We affirm.

         The district court properly dismissed Hadsell’s claims under the FTCA

because the claims are premised on “actions taken during the scope of the IRS’s

tax assessment and collection efforts” and the district court therefore lacked

jurisdiction over them. Snyder & Assocs. Acquisitions LLC, 859 F.3d at 1157; see

also 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) (excepting from the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign

immunity “[a]ny claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any

tax”).

         The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hadsell’s claims

under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. To the extent that Hadsell challenged the offset of past-

due support against overpayments as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6402(c), the

district court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. See 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g) (“No

court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any action . . . brought to

restrain or review a reduction authorized by subsection (c)[.]”

         AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-15760