Voigt v. California Franchise Tax Bd.

983 F.2d 1080 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Tracy VOIGT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD; Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California; Attorney General of the United States of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55599. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 6, 1993. * Decided Jan. 13, 1993. Before REINHARDT, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Tracy Voigt appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of her action against the California Tax Board, the United States Attorney's Office, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the United States Attorney General (collectively, "Government") for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Swift v. Lewis,…