NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAR 25 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH J. BYRON III, No. 20-55125

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-06742-CAS-RAO

v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant,

and

DOES, 1-50; NICOLAS MADUROS, Director of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Joseph J. Byron III appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from a sales tax

assessment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jerron West, Inc.

v. Cal., State Bd. of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1997).

The district court properly dismissed Byron’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because the Tax Injunction Act bars taxpayers from challenging

the validity of a state tax in federal court where there is an adequate remedy

available in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“The district courts shall not enjoin,

suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law

where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such

State.”); Jerron West, Inc., 129 F.3d at 1338-39 (explaining that California offers a

“plain, speedy and efficient remedy” in its courts for state tax appeals (citation

omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-55125