Norman Diamond v. United States
688 F. App'x 429
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Norman Douglas Diamond, proceeding pro se, brought a damages action arising from interactions concerning his federal income taxes.
- Diamond alleged unauthorized disclosure of his Social Security number and asserted other claims against the government related to tax administration and filings.
- The district court dismissed the second cause of action (unauthorized disclosure) and dismissed the remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; dismissals for jurisdictional defects were without prejudice.
- The district court found statutory authorizations and sovereign immunity bars controlled the outcome and denied Diamond discovery and other procedural requests; Diamond appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and jurisdictional dismissal and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosures of Diamond’s return/SSN were unauthorized | Diamond argued disclosures of his SSN/return information were unlawful | Government argued disclosures were authorized by statute for tax-administration proceedings | Court held disclosures were authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) and dismissal proper |
| Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over remaining claims | Diamond asserted causes of action against the government for tax-related harms | Government argued sovereign immunity bars suit absent an unequivocal waiver | Court held Diamond failed to show an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity; jurisdiction lacking; dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether Diamond could bring private claims for fraudulent information returns or refunds in district court | Diamond sought relief under theories including improper filings and refunds | Government pointed to statutes requiring administrative remedies and limited private causes (e.g., § 7434 applies only to persons who file fraudulent returns; refunds require exhaustion/full payment) | Court held statutory schemes (e.g., refund procedures, § 7434’s scope) precluded Diamond’s claims in district court as pleaded |
| Procedural complaints: mishandling of documents, denial of discovery, and request for oral argument | Diamond claimed district court mishandled filings, denied discovery, and improperly denied oral argument | Government maintained court procedures were proper and Diamond failed to timely raise or preserve many arguments | Court rejected these contentions as meritless and declined to consider issues raised first time on appeal; denied oral argument request as case suitable for decision without argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Harger v. Department of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
- Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1983) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
- Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1960) (full payment of tax assessment required before suit for refund)
- Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (statutory intent regarding agency liability under certain federal statutes)
- Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are without prejudice)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts need issues raised and argued in opening brief)
- Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America, 842 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1988) (appellate rule limiting consideration of new arguments raised for first time on appeal)