Marshall Pfeiffer v. California Franchise Tax Board ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARSHALL CASEY PFEIFFER, The No. 18-56334
Gentleman Marshall as AGENT obo his
Granted Federal Franchise MARSHALL D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02438-AJB-JMA
PFEIFFER also known as 222703407-
G38455581,
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