Steeves v. United States Government

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN ALLEN STEEVES, On Behalf of No. 24-2935 Brothers Keeper Ministries, D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00201-TWR-MSB Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2026**

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Dean Allen Steeves appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

for failure to comply with a local rule his action seeking to quash an Internal

Revenue Service summons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merch. Servs.,

Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Steeves’s appeal is moot because the IRS has withdrawn the summons at

issue. See Holloway v. United States, 789 F.2d 1372, 1373 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A]n

appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur which prevent the appellate

court from granting any effective relief even if the dispute is decided in favor of

the appellant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Steeves’s request to vacate the underlying judgment is denied because

Steeves failed to establish grounds for relief. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v.

Bonner Mall Partn., 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994) (explaining that the party seeking

vacatur has the burden to demonstrate equitable entitlement to the “extraordinary

remedy”).

DISMISSED.

2 24-2935