Michael Schagunn v. Sherly Gilland

MEMORANDUM

Michael Steven Schagunn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims arising from his employer’s decision to withhold federal income taxes from his wages contrary to his instructions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 768 (9th Cir.1986), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Schagunn’s action because Schagunn failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants improperly withheld taxes from his earnings. See id., 780 F.2d at 770 (“[A]n employer is not liable to an employee for complying with its legal duty to withhold tax [under 26 U.S.C. § 3402 ]” and “suits by employees against employers for tax withheld are statutorily barred [by 26 U.S.C. .§ 3403].” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief’).

The district court properly denied Scha-gunn’s motion to remand because Scha-gunn’s complaint included causes of actions over which the…