United States of America v. Dennis Owen Poseley

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENNIS OWEN POSELEY,
Defendant,
and
PATRICIA ANN ENSIGN, AKA Patricia
Moats, AKA Patricia Poseley,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-16200
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02335-EHC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-16200 2
Patricia Ann Ensign appeals pro se from the district court’s orders
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction her motion for declaratory and injunctive relief
from the Internal Revenue Services’s (“IRS”) assessment of administrative
penalties for selling tax evasion schemes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir.
1992), and we affirm.
Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of Ensign’s motion for relief from the
assessment of penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6700 was proper because the
government is immune from being sued regarding such penalties except under
limited circumstances that Ensign failed to establish. See 26 U.S.C. § 6703(c) (to
contest § 6700 penalty, claimant must pay 15% of penalty and file a refund claim
with IRS); 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (prohibiting suit to recover penalties until refund
claim is filed); see also Korobkin v. United States, 988 F.2d 975, 976 (1993) (per
curiam) (court lacks jurisdiction over challenge to § 6700 penalty if party fails to
comply with statutory administrative claim requirement); Dunn & Black, P.S. v.
United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2007) (waivers of sovereign
immunity must be unequivocal and strictly construed in the government’s favor).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ensign’s motion for
reconsideration because she failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-16200 3
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (reviewing denial of reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(e) and 60(b) for an abuse of discretion and setting forth requirements).
Ensign’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --