Joseph Byron, III v. Cdtfa ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
MAR 25 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH J. BYRON III, No. 20-55125
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-06742-CAS-RAO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX
AND FEE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant,
and
DOES, 1-50; NICOLAS MADUROS,
Director of the California Department of Tax
and Fee Administration,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Joseph J. Byron III appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from a sales tax
assessment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jerron West, Inc.
v. Cal., State Bd. of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1997).
The district court properly dismissed Byron’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.”); Jerron West, Inc., 129 F.3d at 1338-39 (explaining that California offers a
“plain, speedy and efficient remedy” in its courts for state tax appeals (citation
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55125