Dean Steeves v. Irs
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dean Steeves v. Irs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-steeves-v-irs-ca9-2024.