DONNIE FRANCIS SCHROEDER, DBA Quality 1 Sweeping & Steam Cleaning v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONNIE FRANCIS SCHROEDER, DBA
Quality # 1 Sweeping & Steam Cleaning,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16563
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00152-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Donnie Francis Schroeder appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging unlawful inspection and disclosure of his tax return
information, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7431. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428,
432 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the portion of Schroeder’s action
pertaining to inspections because Schroeder failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) employees unlawfully inspected confidential
return information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(1) (authorizing inspection or
disclosure of return information for tax administration purposes); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Schroeder’s
contention, 26 U.S.C. § 7608 applies only to criminal enforcement officers
performing certain functions, and thus has no bearing on whether the IRS
employees acted within the scope of their authority. See Beam v. IRS (In re Beam),
192 F.3d 941, 945-46 (9th Cir. 1999).
The district court properly dismissed the portion of Schroeder’s action
pertaining to disclosures because Schroeder was precluded from bringing a claim
under 26 U.S.C. § 7431. See Shwarz, 234 F.3d at 432-33 (claim based on improper
disclosure occurring in the course of tax collection activity must proceed under 26
13-16563 2

-- 2 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 7433, not under 26 U.S.C. § 7431); see also 26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(6)
(authorizing disclosure of return information for collection activity under
conditions prescribed by regulations); 26 C.F.R. § 301.6103(k)(6)-1(a)(1)(vi)
(authorizing disclosure of return information to levy on assets).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-16563 3

-- 3 of 3 --