Dean Steeves v. Dorothy Nelson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEAN ALLEN STEEVES, No. 21-56164 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01265-CAB-MSB v. MEMORANDUM* DOROTHY NELSON, Internal Revenue Service/Revenue Officer, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Dean Allen Steeves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Steeves’s mandamus action seeking to compel an Internal Revenue Service officer to respond to his inquiry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kildare v. * 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). Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Steeves’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Steeves did not establish that Nelson had a nondiscretionary duty to respond to his letter requesting the basis for her authority to issue Steeves’s tax assessment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1084 (explaining the conditions for availability of mandamus relief). We do not consider 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. 2 21-56164