DEAN STEEVES V. IRS, No. 22-56219 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEAN ALLEN STEEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-56219 D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00931-WQH-DDL v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Dean Allen Steeves appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking to void notices of intent to levy issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th * 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). Cir. 2013). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Steeves’s action as barred by the AntiInjunction Act (“the Act”) because it is an attempt to restrain the IRS’s tax assessment and collection activities, and no exception applies. See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions); Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523, 525 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that 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” and setting forth limited judicial exception). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Steeves’s motion to correct a typo in the reply brief (Docket Entry No. 25) is granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-56219

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.