Opinion
No. 18-15347
01-24-2019
SCOTT R. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NINA E. OLSON; UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00474-RCJ-VPC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Scott R. Martin appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Martin's mandamus action seeking to compel the National Taxpayer Advocate to respond to his inquiry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stang v. IRS, 788 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of mandamus jurisdiction because the National Taxpayer Advocate does not have a "nondiscretionary duty" to respond to Martin's inquiries. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining the conditions for availability of mandamus relief); Stang, 788 F.2d at 565-566 (affirming the district court's dismissal for lack of mandamus jurisdiction because the IRS had no "nondiscretionary duty" to assess plaintiff's taxes on demand).
We do not consider matters that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.