From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cates v. Johns

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 17, 2003
78 F. App'x 606 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

Submitted Oct. 14, 2003.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding.

David A. Cates, Elko, NV, Gisela Cates, Elko, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Virginia C. Lowe, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, Richard Farber, Esq., Marion E.M. Erickson, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.


Page 607.

Before WARDLAW, BERZON and CLIFTON, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

David A. Cates and Gisela Cates appeal pro se the district court's dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) of the Cates's complaint against Brent Johns, a revenue officer with the Internal Revenue Service, for actions arising out of the attempted collection of the Cates's federal income tax liabilities in excess of $160,000.

The district court correctly substituted the United States as defendant in place of Johns, Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1145-46 (9th Cir.1984), and determined that the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir.1990). The district court also correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction insofar as the Cates's complaint sought injunctive relief. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); Sokolow v. United States, 169 F.3d 663, 664-65 (9th Cir.1999) (no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court). In addition, the district court correctly determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 26 U.S.C. § 7432; 7433; Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 432-34 (9th Cir.2000).

We deny appellee's motion for sanctions.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Cates v. Johns

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 17, 2003
78 F. App'x 606 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Cates v. Johns

Case Details

Full title:David A. CATES; et al., Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. Brent JOHNS; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 17, 2003

Citations

78 F. App'x 606 (9th Cir. 2003)