SAEPOFF v. RIEHLE (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jessica SAEPOFF, in propia persona, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jay RIEHLE, Revenue Officer, individually and in his capacity as employee of the United States, Internal Revenue Service; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35589

Decided: June 21, 2018

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jessica Saepoff, Pro Se Michael J. Haungs, Geoffrey Klimas, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Jay Riehle, Thomas A. Byrd, John A. Koskinen, Steven Terner Mnuchin, United States of America Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esquire, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA, Jason P. Steed, Attorney, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Premera Blue Cross Stellman Keehnel, Austin Rainwater, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Delta Dental of Washington Sarah N. Turner, Attorney, Gordon & Rees LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company Michael Steven DeLeo, Esquire, Attorney, Peterson Russell Kelly, PLLC, Bellevue, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Daniel J. Oates, Attorney, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, LLP, Seattle, WA, Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A.

MEMORANDUM **

Jessica Saepoff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Saepoff’s claims challenging her tax liabilities as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (“the Act”), 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), because Saepoff sought to restrain the government’s tax assessment and collection activities, and no exception to the Act applies. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1990) (“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.”); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions); Elias, 908 F.2d at 525 (discussing limited judicial exception).

The district court properly dismissed Saepoff’s claims challenging the private defendants’ compliance with the Internal Revenue Service notices of levy because the notices immunized those defendants from suit. See 26 U.S.C. § 6332(a), (e).

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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law