Getrost v. U.S. Through I.R.S.

993 F.2d 882 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert G. GETROST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Acting Through the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al. Defendant-Appellee, Audrey J. GETROST, Defendant/cross-claimant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al. Defendant/Cross-defendant. No. 92-56233. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 27, 1993. * Decided May 21, 1993. Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Robert and Audrey Getrost appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their action against the United States and Richard Hanson for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. 3 * Subject Matter Jurisdiction 4 The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990). The district court's…