Hart v. Fitzpatrick

Ninth Circuit

Hart v. Fitzpatrick

143 F. App'x 832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 2005

DocketNo. 04-17557

StatusPublished

This text of 143 F. App'x 832 (Hart v. Fitzpatrick) 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

Hart v. Fitzpatrick, 143 F. App'x 832 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Robert C. Hart appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging that Clark County Treasurer, Laura B. Fitzpatrick, violated his constitutional rights by attempting to collect taxes on his real property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Jerron West, Inc. v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction over Hart’s action because he already attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a state court judgment against appellee over the same property at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”); Patel v. City of San Bernardino, 310 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.2002) (prohibiting declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court where taxpayer has adequate state court remedy and proscribing claims for damages).

Hart’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Robert C. Hart appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging that Clark County Treasurer, Laura B. Fitzpatrick, violated his constitutional rights by attempting to collect taxes on his real property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Jerron West, Inc. v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction over Hart’s action because he already attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a state court judgment against appellee over the same property at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”); Patel v. City of San Bernardino, 310 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.2002) (prohibiting declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court where taxpayer has adequate state court remedy and proscribing claims for damages).

Hart’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F. App'x 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-fitzpatrick-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack