MARSHALL PFEIFFER V. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, No. 18-56334 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARSHALL CASEY PFEIFFER, The Gentleman Marshall as AGENT obo his Granted Federal Franchise MARSHALL PFEIFFER also known as 222703407G38455581, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-56334 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02438-AJB-JMA MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Marshall Casey Pfeiffer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging that the * 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). California Franchise Tax Board’s assessment and collection of state taxes from him was unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, May Trucking Co. v. Or. Dep’t of Transp., 388 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Pfeiffer’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Tax Injunction Act bars taxpayers from challenging the validity of a state tax in federal court where there is an adequate remedy available in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”); Hyatt v. Yee, 871 F.3d 1067, 1074 n.34, 1077 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “constitutional claims can qualify as claims seeking to void a tax” for purposes of the application of the Tax Injunction Act and that there is an adequate remedy under California law). 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. 2 18-56334
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.
