Court Opinion

ID: 9374698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 19:00:38.027335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.652698
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN ALLEN STEEVES,                             No. 21-56164

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01265-CAB-MSB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DOROTHY NELSON, Internal Revenue
Service/Revenue Officer,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                 Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

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

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Steeves’s mandamus action

seeking to compel an Internal Revenue Service officer to respond to his inquiry.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kildare v.

      *
             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).
Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Steeves’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Steeves did not establish that Nelson had a

nondiscretionary duty to respond to his letter requesting the basis for her authority

to issue Steeves’s tax assessment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1084

(explaining the conditions for availability of mandamus relief).

      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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    21-56164