Bryan Griggs v. Cir

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 23-70115
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN M. GRIGGS, No. 23-70115

Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 37884-21

v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Bryan M. Griggs appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order denying his

post-judgment motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.

§ 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Abatti v. Comm’r, 859 F.2d

115, 117 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.

* 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). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Griggs’s untimely

motion to vacate the dismissal order because it lacked jurisdiction to vacate the

decision after it became final. See Manchester Grp. v. Comm’r, 113 F.3d 1087,

1088 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “[t]he Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to

alter a decision after it becomes final” unless it lacked jurisdiction to enter the

decision or the decision resulted from fraud on the court).

We do not consider Griggs’s contentions regarding the Tax Court’s

dismissal order because Griggs failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to that

decision. See 26 U.S.C. § 7483 (notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days of

judgment).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-70115