Bond v. Franchise Tax Board

Full title: Charles H. BOND, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 29, 2006

175 F. App'x 822 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted March 8, 2006. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Charles H. Bond, Yorba Linda, CA, pro se.

S. Paul Bruguera, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00887-JVS.

Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** 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.

Taxpayer Charles H. Bond appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action challenging the California Franchise Tax Board's assessment of tax liabilities for tax years 2000-2003. Bond also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Montes v. United States, 37 F.3d 1347, 1351 (9th Cir.1994), as well as dismissals for failure to state a claim, Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

Because California offers a "plain, speedy and efficient remedy" in its courts for state tax appeals, see Jerron West, Inc. v. State of Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1997), the district court properly dismissed Bond's claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

The district court also properly dismissed Bond's remaining claims because the defendant state agency is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985, see Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board (In re Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir.2000).

Bond's remaining contentions lack merit.

Bond's request for sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED.