Michael Manant v. United States , 498 F. App'x 752 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 20 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL JOSEPH MANANT;                           No. 11-17073
    ANNETTE LYNNE MANANT,
    D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00566-JMS-
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,          KSC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 13, 2012 **
    Before:        CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Michael Joseph Manant and Annette Lynne Manant appeal pro se from the
    district court’s judgment in their action alleging that the Internal Revenue Service
    violated various statutes and regulations in collecting their accrued federal income
    *
    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).
    tax liabilities for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust. Sapp v.
    Kimbrell, 
    623 F.3d 813
    , 821 (9th Cir. 2010). We vacate and remand with
    instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    Dismissal of the Manants’ action without prejudice was proper because the
    district court lacked jurisdiction in light of the Manants’ failure to pursue an
    administrative claim before filing their action. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 7433
    (d)(1)
    (requiring taxpayers to exhaust administrative remedies as a prerequisite to filing
    an action for damages regarding improper tax collection); Conforte v. United
    States, 
    979 F.2d 1375
    , 1376-77 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to exhaust administrative
    remedies under § 7433(d)(1) deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s
    damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a)).
    In light of our disposition, we do not address the Manants’ remaining
    arguments regarding the merits their claims. See Wages v. IRS, 
    915 F.2d 1230
    ,
    1234 (9th Cir. 1990) (where the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it
    retains no power to make judgments as to the merits of the case).
    The Manants shall bear the costs on appeal.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                      11-17073
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-17073

Citation Numbers: 498 F. App'x 752

Judges: Canby, Fletcher, Trott

Filed Date: 11/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023