United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
JOHN M. KURZ, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
closed matter is before the Court on plaintiff John M.
Kurz's pro se Motion to Alter or Amend Court
Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Doc. 43. In his motion, plaintiff requests that
this Court reconsider its August 13, 2019 Memorandum and
Order granting the government's motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docs. 37, 38). The
government opposes the motion and it is fully briefed. For
the following reasons, plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a
motion under Rule 59(e). Innovative Home Health Care,
Inc. v. P.T .O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify
that “the district court possesses the power to rectify
its own mistakes in the period immediately following the
entry of judgment.” White v. New Hampshire
Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982)
(internal quotations omitted). “Rule 59(e) motions
serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286
(internal punctuation and citations omitted). “Such
motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new
legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been
offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.”
United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Innovative
Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286)).
has not shown he is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 59(e)
as he has failed to establish a manifest error of law or
fact, the discovery of new evidence, or an intervening change
in the law. Plaintiff argues that the failure of the Court to
notice his citation to the Anti-Injunction Act exception of
26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) was “clear error.” Doc.
44 at 2. Contrary to this assertion, the Court did consider
that exception, but determined plaintiff “failed to
establish that a statutory exception to the [Anti-Injunction
Act] exists in this matter.” Doc. 37 at 5. The Court
referenced 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) in the Order dismissing
this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Id. The crux of plaintiff's argument was that he
never received notices of deficiency from the IRS and, as a
result, could circumvent the Anti-Injunction Act and bring
this action to this Court. The Court found this argument was
flawed because it was based on plaintiff's misreading of
a Tax Court Order. Id. at 4-5. Thus, plaintiff did
not meet an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
further argues he “only became fully aware after the 13
August 2019 dismissal of his case, of the repeated
falsification by IRS of digital and documentary
records” and “the existence of the equitable
exception to the AIA bar identified in Enoch's
Packing.” Doc. 44 at 2. The case plaintiff cites,
Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370
U.S. 1 (1962), was included in his opposition briefing and
brought to the Court's attention prior to the entry of
judgment. Doc. 24 at 6-7. Thus, plaintiff's argument that
he did not know about the content of a case he cited in his
opposition is not grounds for reconsideration or to otherwise
set aside the judgment.
plaintiff's reference to alleged IRS falsification of
records, he seeks to introduce a Declaration and Forensic
Analysis of Evidence (the “Declaration”) written
by Mr. Robert McNeil, a retired forensic accountant/auditor
located in Hurst, Texas, and dated September 8, 2019. The
Declaration purports to offer the following conclusions: (1)
the Commissioner of the IRS “circumvents his conceded
lack of authority to perform Substitute income tax returns by
making his records appear that he performed them;” (2)
“the IRS creates the false appearance of
‘deficiencies;'” (3) the “creation of
pretended deficiencies creates, by fraud, the appearance of a
duty to file;” (4) “without the appearance of
deficiencies created by fraud, involving both IRS falsified
and digital documentary records, there would be no willful
failure to file a return;” and (5) “Congress did
not, in fact, impose any duty upon Americans to file income
tax returns.” Doc. 44-3. The Declaration includes four
exhibits, including two sets of IRS account transcripts which
were previously introduced into the record and two letters
from the IRS, dated September 17, 2013 and July 6, 2016, in
response to Freedom of Information Act requests specific to
Mr. McNeil's income taxes, not plaintiff's
income taxes. Id.
Declaration was created almost a month after the Court's
Order dismissing the case, the exhibit letters are dated over
six and three years ago, and neither the Declaration nor the
exhibits contain any information that would not have been
available at the time plaintiff filed his opposition to the
government's motion to dismiss. “Motions for
reconsideration cannot be used to introduce new evidence that
could have been produced while the summary judgment motion
was pending.” Chism v. W.R. Grace & Co.,
158 F.3d 988, 992 n. 4 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Hagerman
v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.
1988)). ” Thus, the Declaration is not grounds for
reconsideration or to otherwise set aside the judgment.
arguments plaintiff makes in his Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter
or Amend Court Judgment do not provide grounds for relief
from the judgment. Plaintiff has failed to establish a
manifest error of law or fact, the discovery of new evidence,
or an intervening change in the law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff John M.
Kurz's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend ...