FRANK EVERSOLE V. IRS, No. 16-35035 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 25 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANK EVERSOLE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-35035 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00101-REB v. MEMORANDUM* INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Ronald E. Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted April 11, 2017*** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Frank Eversole appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that the Internal Revenue Service illegally levied his Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Eversole’s action because the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to levy Eversole’s Social Security disability insurance benefits. See 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a) (enumerating property exempt from levy for taxes); id. § 6334(c) (providing that no other property is exempt from levy other than property enumerated in subsection (a)); see also id. § 6331(a) (Secretary has the power to levy property and rights to property if a person is liable for unpaid taxes, and federal payments can be levied). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued at the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-35035

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.