
    Tara Chand SINGHAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury the Executive Branch of the United States Government, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-55461
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 25, 2017
    Tara Chand Singhal, Pro Se
    Thomas D. Coker, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney, Geoffrey Klimas, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Steven Mnuchin has been substituted for his predecessor, Jack Lew, as Secretary of the Treasury under Fed. R. App. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tara Chand Singhal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing Singhal’s action against the Secretary of the Treasury alleging that a Tax Court judge violated Singhal’s due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity. Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Singhal’s claim for monetary damages for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (United States is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived its sovereign immunity, and sovereign immunity cannot be circumvented by naming officers and employees of the United States as defendants).

We reject as without merit Singhal’s contentions that the district court judge was biased and the dismissal of his action was a violation of the First Amendment.

Defendant's request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     