Christopher Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury by its agency, the Internal…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the
Department of Treasury by its agency, the
Internal Revenue Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-15760
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-03512-VKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 26, 2023***
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Hadsell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment and dismissal order in his action brought under the Federal Tort Claims
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15760
Act (“FTCA”) and 26 U.S.C. § 7433, stemming from the government’s application
of tax payments to offset Hadsell’s past-due child support debt. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Snyder & Assocs.
Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2017) (subject
matter jurisdiction); Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012)
(summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hadsell’s claims under the FTCA
because the claims are premised on “actions taken during the scope of the IRS’s
tax assessment and collection efforts” and the district court therefore lacked
jurisdiction over them. Snyder & Assocs. Acquisitions LLC, 859 F.3d at 1157; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) (excepting from the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign
immunity “[a]ny claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any
tax”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hadsell’s claims
under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. To the extent that Hadsell challenged the offset of past-
due support against overpayments as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6402(c), the
district court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. See 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g) (“No
court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any action . . . brought to
restrain or review a reduction authorized by subsection (c)[.]”
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --