Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gowadia v. Internal Revenue Serv.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 13, 2019

NOSHIR S. GOWADIA, FED. REG. #95518-022, Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

         Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the March 12, 2019 Dismissal Order. See Order, ECF No. 11; Mot., ECF No. 14. Plaintiff complains that the Court dismissed this action with prejudice before considering his March 25, 2019 letter explaining his theory of the case, failed to address the issues raised in his Complaint, misunderstood the facts underlying his claims, and relied upon faulty precedent. He also asserts that this Court, the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and every other federal court to review his criminal conviction and numerous civil cases have acted only to protect the Government and pervert the true meaning of the Constitution.

         For the following reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         When a ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order - as the March 12, 2019 Dismissal Order did - a motion for reconsideration may be construed as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Because Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, did not receive notice of entry of judgment until March 25, 2019, and he filed his Motion within twenty-eight days thereafter, the court applies Rule 59(e).

         Amending a judgment after entry is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam). A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if:

(1) such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). In unusual circumstances, a court may also consider other grounds for amending or altering a judgment under Rule 59(e). Id. (allowing amendment for clerical errors). “A motion for reconsideration is not intended to be used to reiterate arguments, facts and law already presented to the court.” Welch v. Sisto, 2008 WL 4455842, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2008). Nor may a motion for reconsideration “be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks, citations, and emphasis omitted).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brought this suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on June 11, 2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleged that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Hawaii-based IRS agents Florence Poon, Susan Mitsuyoshi, and Debra Tsuha (collectively, “Defendants”), falsified information regarding Plaintiff's 2003 tax return, and used this false information seven years later in 2010, while his criminal proceedings were ongoing, to disallow a $92, 700 deduction. The IRS withdrew the claim in 2011, however, and the case was dismissed.

         Plaintiff alleged Defendants perpetrated this fraud during his federal criminal proceedings because he was then an “easy target, ” to obtain a financial reward, and because they were “heavily influenced” by former U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii, Florence Nakakuni, who prosecuted his criminal proceedings. See id., PageID #3, #6. Plaintiff claimed that he was not challenging his criminal proceedings, but only explaining how Defendants' conduct impacted his prosecution, and thus he argued that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), did not bar his claims. He alleged, however, that the Government used Defendants' allegedly fraudulent calculations during his criminal proceedings to show that Plaintiff failed to declare all of his income, and that Mitsuyoshi testified to this at his trial.[1] Id., PageID #7. Plaintiff sought $5 million from the IRS and $3 million each from Poon, Mitsuyoshi, and Tsuha.

         The District of Columbia transferred the action to the District of Hawaii on February 21, 2019. ECF No. 8.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.