Dean Allen Steeves v. DOROTHY NELSON, Internal Revenue Service/Revenue Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEAN ALLEN STEEVES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DOROTHY NELSON, Internal Revenue
Service/Revenue Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-56164
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01265-CAB-MSB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-56164
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 of 2 --