Dean Steeves v. Irs

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 2024
Docket22-56219
StatusUnpublished

This text of Dean Steeves v. Irs (Dean Steeves v. Irs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dean Steeves v. Irs, (9th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. 22-56219

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00931-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 intent to

levy 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 (9th

* 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). 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).

Steeves’s motion to correct a typo in the reply brief (Docket Entry No. 25) is

granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-56219

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett
908 F.2d 521 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Karen Dexter v. Carolyn W. Colvin
731 F.3d 977 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dean Steeves v. Irs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-steeves-v-irs-ca9-2024.