In re: MICHAEL CAREY and LEONE CAREY v. United States of America

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MICHAEL CAREY and LEONE
CAREY,
Debtors,
MICHAEL CAREY and LEONE CAREY,
Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee.
No. 11-60001
BAP No. 10-1017
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Hollowell, and Montali, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted September 19, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
SEP 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-60001 2
Michael and Leone Carey appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the Careys’
adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Careys’ adversary proceeding
seeking to enjoin the government from collecting federal tax liabilities because,
under the Anti Injunction Act, the court lacked jurisdiction over the proceeding.
See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (unless permitted by statute, “no suit for the purpose of
restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court
by any person”); Sokolow v. United States, 169 F.3d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (an
action that does not fall within one of the limited exceptions to the Anti Injunction
Act “must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”); Maxfield v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir. 1984) (the Anti Injunction Act is “strictly
enforced”).
The Careys’ contentions that the bankruptcy court discharged their tax
liability and that the bankruptcy court failed to protect its judgment from collateral

-- 2 of 3 --

11-60001 3
attack from the district court are unsupported by the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --