United States District Court, D. Hawaii
NOSHIR S. GOWADIA, FED. REG. #95518-022, Plaintiff,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
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.
following reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
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
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
(3) such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice;
or (4) the amendment is justified by an intervening change in
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).
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.
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. Id.,
PageID #7. Plaintiff sought $5 million from the IRS and $3
million each from Poon, Mitsuyoshi, and Tsuha.
District of Columbia transferred the action to the District
of Hawaii on February 21, 2019. ECF No. 8.