Bruce Norvell v. Secretary of the Treasury ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 15 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BRUCE A. NORVELL,                                No.   19-35156
    Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00251-BLW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY;
    UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
    SERVICE,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Bruce A. Norvell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action for declaratory and
    injunctive relief arising from his submissions to the Internal Revenue Service’s
    *
    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).
    Whistleblower Office (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
    Rattlesnake Coal. v. U.S. EPA, 
    509 F.3d 1095
    , 1100 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Norvell’s action arising from 
    26 U.S.C. § 7623
     because Norvell failed to show that the Administrative Procedure Act’s
    (“APA”) waiver of sovereign immunity applies to his claims. See Int’l Bhd. of
    Teamsters v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 
    861 F.3d 944
    , 952 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Section
    704 of the APA provides for judicial review of ‘[a]gency action made reviewable
    by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a
    court.’” (quoting 
    5 U.S.C. § 704
    )); 
    26 U.S.C. § 7623
    (b)(4) (IRS’s determination
    regarding an award under § 7623(b)(1), (2), or (3) may be appealed to the Tax
    Court, which has jurisdiction with respect to such matter). However, a dismissal
    for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice. See Kelly v.
    Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 
    377 F.3d 1034
    , 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the
    dismissal and instruct the district court to amend the judgment to reflect that the
    dismissal of the action is without prejudice.
    We reject as without merit Norvell’s contention that the IRS’s disposition of
    his March 21, 2018 application was not a “determination” within the meaning of
    § 7623(b)(4).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    2                                    19-35156
    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 with instructions to amend the judgment.
    3                                       19-35156
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-35156

Filed Date: 9/15/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2020