Scott R. Martin v. Nina E. Olson; United States Internal Revenue Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT R. MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NINA E. OLSON; UNITED STATES
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15347
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
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
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.
* 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
JAN 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15347
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.

-- 2 of 2 --