Tara Singhal v. Jack Lew , 690 F. App'x 471 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARA CHAND SINGHAL, No. 16-55461
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-05968-BRO-
MRW
v.
STEVEN MNUCHIN,* Secretary of The MEMORANDUM**
Treasury The Executive Branch of the
United States Government,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017***
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Tara Chand Singhal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing Singhal’s action against the Secretary of the Treasury alleging that a
*
Steven Mnuchin has been substituted for his predecessor, Jack Lew,
as Secretary of the Treasury under Fed. R. App. 43(c)(2).
**
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).
Tax Court judge violated Singhal’s due process rights. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of sovereign
immunity. Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Singhal’s claim for monetary damages
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has not waived its
sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476-78 (1994) (the United
States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts); Gilbert v.
DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (United States is immune from suit
unless it has expressly waived its sovereign immunity, and sovereign immunity
cannot be circumvented by naming officers and employees of the United States as
defendants).
We reject as without merit Singhal’s contentions that the district court judge
was biased and the dismissal of his action was a violation of the First Amendment.
Defendant’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55461