NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SCOTT R. MARTIN, No. 18-15347

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00474-RCJ-VPC v.

MEMORANDUM* NINA E. OLSON; UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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 18-15347