United States v. Raghvendra Singh ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-15659
Petitioner-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00287-TLN-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAGHVENDRA SINGH,
Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Raghvendra Singh appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to have the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) reassess and reconsider his
tax liabilities, and the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to the
government. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
district court’s determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Dexter v.
Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Singh’s motion to reconsider his taxes as
barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (“the Act”), 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), because Singh
sought to restrain the government’s tax assessment and collection activities, and no
exception to the Act applies. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir.
1990) (“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.”); see also 26 U.S.C.
§ 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions); Elias, 908 F.2d at 525 (discussing limited
judicial exception).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the
government attorney’s fees and costs incurred in litigating contempt proceedings
against Singh. See Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Prof’l Publ’ns, Inc. v.
Multistate Legal Studies, Inc., 26 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 1994) (district courts
have discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs for civil contempt to make party
injured by the contempt whole); Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1235 (9th Cir.
1991) (standard of review).
To the extent that Singh challenges the district court’s contempt order and
the order enforcing the IRS summons, this court in United States v. Singh, Case
No. 16-15853, dismissed his appeal of these orders for lack of appellate
2 17-15659
jurisdiction. This court dismissed his appeal of the contempt order as moot, and
his appeal of the order enforcing the IRS summons as untimely.
We reject as without merit Singh’s contentions regarding due process
violations, any judicial misconduct by the district court judge, and any fraud or
misconduct by the IRS.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening briefs, 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.
3 17-15659