Steven C. Levi v. Federal Housing Finance Agency;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN C. LEVI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-35128
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00183-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Steven C. Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction his mandamus action seeking to compel the four
federal agency defendants to investigate his alleged “gift mortgage” theory. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack
* 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).
FILED
OCT 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

19-35128
of subject matter jurisdiction. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Levi’s mandamus action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Levi failed to allege facts sufficient to
demonstrate Article III standing, entitlement to mandamus relief, or the waiver of
defendants’ sovereign immunity. See Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found.,
Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 593 (2007) (“It has long been established . . . that the payment
of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken
by the Federal Government.”); Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997)
(setting forth the requirements for mandamus relief); Sierra Club v. Whitman, 268
F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2001) (suits against any agency of the United States “are
barred by sovereign immunity unless there has been a specific waiver of that
immunity”).
Levi’s renewed motion for summary judgment, set forth in the reply brief, is
denied.
All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --