FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL DAVID JOSEPH, No. 11-55489
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05167-DSF-E
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.,
__________________________,
M. RAANAN,
Defendant,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising out of an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) levy to
collect unpaid taxes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, BNSF Ry. Co. v. O’Dea,
572 F.3d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 2009), and a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th
Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Joseph’s claim for damages against the
IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 because Joseph failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that he pursued an administrative claim before filing his action. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 7433(d)(1) (requiring taxpayers to exhaust administrative remedies as a
prerequisite to filing an action for damages regarding improper tax collection); 26
C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(e) (specifying required administrative remedies); Conforte v.
United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under § 7433(d)(1) deprived the court of jurisdiction over
a taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a)).
The district court properly dismissed Joseph’s conversion claim against
Muriel Siebert & Co. because it was immune from liability for complying with the
IRS levy. See 26 U.S.C. § 6332(e).
2 11-55489
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Joseph’s motion to file a supplemental reply brief is granted, and the Clerk is
directed to file the supplemental reply brief received on October 14, 2011.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-55489