Marshall Pfeiffer v. California Franchise Tax Board

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 26, 2019
• Docket: 18-56334
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARSHALL CASEY PFEIFFER, The No. 18-56334 Gentleman Marshall as AGENT obo his Granted Federal Franchise MARSHALL D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02438-AJB-JMA PFEIFFER also known as 222703407- G38455581, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Marshall Casey Pfeiffer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging that the

* 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). California Franchise Tax Board’s assessment and collection of state taxes from

him was unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo, May Trucking Co. v. Or. Dep’t of Transp., 388 F.3d 1261, 1265

(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

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

matter jurisdiction because the Tax Injunction Act bars taxpayers from challenging

the validity of a state tax in federal court where there is an adequate remedy

available in state court. 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.”); Hyatt v. Yee, 871 F.3d 1067, 1074 n.34, 1077 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining

that “constitutional claims can qualify as claims seeking to void a tax” for purposes

of the application of the Tax Injunction Act and that there is an adequate remedy

under California law).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or 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 18-56334