Ioane
Ioane v. California Board of Equalization
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael Scott Ioane and the Stenshoel family appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging that defendants violated their civil rights by improperly searching and seizing property at the request of California’s Franchise Tax Board and Board of Equalization. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
Although the September 7, 2000, second amended notice of appeal purports to appeal from the district court’s September 1, 2000, corrected order on behalf of all plaintiffs, it is signed only by Ioane, Larry Stenshoel and Patricia Stenshoel. Because Michael, Rozanne and Anna Stenshoel corrected the September 7, 2000, second amended notice of appeal by later adding their signatures, all plaintiffs are proper parties to this appeal.. See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 , -, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001). Accordingly, we deny appellees’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal with respect to the Stenshoels.
Because the complaint alleges that Ioane did not become a trustee in the Cade Company…