FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN J. LINDSEY; PATRICIA L. No. 12-56791
LINDSEY,
D.C. No. 8:11-cv-00588-DOC-E
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
THE ALLEGED UNITED STATES
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT;
UNKNOWN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
OR AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Stephen J. and Patricia L. Lindsey appeal pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
summary judgment in the Lindseys’ action contesting their federal income tax
liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even
assuming that the 1949 treasury regulation remains in effect, the Lindseys failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their income was not taxable
under the Constitution and, therefore, exempt under the regulation. See Pelletier v.
Fed. Home Loan Bank of S.F., 968 F.2d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 1992) (to survive
summary judgment, nonmovant “ordinarily must furnish affidavits containing
admissible evidence tending to show the existence of a genuine dispute of material
fact”); see also United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir.
1989) (“[T]he Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and
explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of . . . [an] income
tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of
the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”).
We reject the Lindseys’ contention that discovery would have precluded
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-56791