United States v. Ruby Gaylor

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 1 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-56967
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02026-GAF-
AJW
v.
RUBY JANE GAYLOR, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ruby Jane Gaylor appeals pro se from the district court’s order permanently
enjoining her from filing false tax documents or providing false tax documents to
any persons or entities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion the issuance of a permanent injunction. United States v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a permanent
injunction preventing Gaylor from filing false tax documents or providing false tax
documents to other persons or entities. See 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) (“The district
courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such
jurisdiction to make and issue . . . orders of injunction . . . as may be necessary or
appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.”);
California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 575 F.3d 999, 1019 (9th Cir.
2009) (listing traditional permanent injunction factors).
Contrary to Gaylor’s contentions, the government’s service of process was
not defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), nor was the government required to
enter into a settlement agreement with her.
Gaylor’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-56967