Crews v. Parlier Unified School District et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/6/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MURRAY CREWS,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01271-AWI-SMS

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
PARLIER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ET AL.,

Doc. 8
Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Murray Crews, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for declaratory relief on August

17
14, 2013, and amended it on August 19, 2013. Plaintiff alleged five causes of action against Parlier
18
19

Unified School District and eleven school board and staff members: breach of contract, negligence,

20

failure to train, forcing Plaintiff to commit perjury, subornation of perjury, and issuance of a false

21

IRS form 1099. All five issues were predicated on Plaintiff's belief that he is not required to pay

22

federal income taxes on monies earned within the United States since he is not a "U.S. person" under

23

federal law.

24

After screening the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Magistrate Judge

25
filed findings and recommendations recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice
26
27
28

as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (requiring the Court dismiss any claim that is frivolous or
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted). The findings and recommendations were
1

1

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations

2

were to be served within thirty days. On October 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections in which he

3

restated the arguments supporting the claims set forth in the complaint and asserted his right to be

4

heard in Court.

5
6

On May 20, 2014, the District Court filed its order adopting the findings and
recommendations, reiterating that United States courts have long rejected as frivolous the argument

7
that citizens need not pay taxes on monies earned within the United States. Plaintiff's liability to pay
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

income taxes on the money he earns within the United States is no exception. Accordingly, the
Court dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, as frivolous.
On June 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed for reconsideration, casting his motion as one for rehearing
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 59. Since the judgment was entered as a matter of law following screening
and without a trial, the Court will treat this motion as one for reconsideration of the May 20, 2014
order dismissing this case.

15
16
17

DISCUSSION
Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interest of finality

18

and conservation of judicial resources." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

19

Courts generally refuse to reopen decided matters. Magnesystems, Inc. v. Nikken, Inc., 933

20

F.Supp. 944, 948 (C.D.Cal. 1996). "[T]here would be no end to a suit if every obstinate litigant

21

could, by repeated appeals, compel a court to listen to criticisms on their opinions, or speculate on

22
chances from changes of its members." Roberts v. Cooper, 61 U.S. 467, 481 (1857).
23
24

"A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's

25

decision." United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal. 2001).

26

To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to

27

reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

28

2

1

(E.D.Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.

2

1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff introduces

3

several new arguments, each of which is a frivolous argument popularized by tax protesters that has

4

repeatedly been rejected by United States courts.

5
6

First, Plaintiff contends that he need not have submitted a IRS Form W9 since the form does
not include an OMB number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C §§ 3501, et

7
seq.). In support of his argument, Plaintiff cites Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S.
8
9

26 (1990),1 and United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 United States courts have

10

universally rejected this argument with regard to IRS forms, generally holding that the Paperwork

11

Reduction Act applies to regulations promulgated by agencies, not to statutory requirements

12

requiring the filing of returns and payment of taxes. See, e.g., Aldrich v. C.I.R.,66 T.C.M.(CCH) 13,

13
14

1993 WL 244916 at *4 (1993) ("[W]here Congress sets forth an explicit statutory requirement that
the citizen provide information, and provides criminal penalties for failure to comply with the

15
16
17

request, that . . . . is a legislative command, not an agency request.") The Ninth Circuit agrees.
United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (9th Cir. 1991). "[L]ack of an OMB number on IRS

18

notices and forms does not violate the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act." James v. United

19

States, 970 F.2d 750, 753 n. 6 (10th Cir. 1992). "Any argument that the [Paperwork Reduction Act]

20

relieves the taxpayer of the duty to file an income tax return has no merit and is frivolous."

21

"Frivolous Tax Returns; Reliance on Paperwork Reduction Act," Rev. Rul. 2006-21 (March 16,

22
2006).
23
Relying on Rowan Companies, Inc. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247, 253 (1981), Plaintiff next

24
25

contends that the Court erred in relying on the regulations concerning identification numbers since
1

26
27
28

In Dole, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the Office of Management and Budget had authority
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq.) to review regulations promulgated under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq.) governing the labeling of industrial chemicals.
Dole, 494 U.S. at 28-29.
2
In Smith, the Ninth Circuit held that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, plans of operations for mining activities in a
national forest were subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 866 F.2d at 1094.

3

1

those regulations "are interpretive regulations not having the force and effect of laws."3 Doc. 8 at 2.

2

This argument is unpersuasive since the findings and recommendations specifically cited 26 C.F.R. §

3

301.6109-1(b) as the interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 6109 (a)(2): "Any person with respect to whom a

4

return, statement, or other document is required under this title to be made by another person or

5

whose identifying number is required to be shown on a return of another person shall furnish to such

6

other person such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing his proper identification."

7
See Doc. 3 at 5.
8
Third, Plaintiff requests that Court "enter an Order to make findings of facts as legal

9
10

conclusions from the evidence presented answering the question, 'Was Plaintiff required to sign

11

Form W-9?'" Doc. 8 at 2. Having already done so in its findings and recommendations, and in the

12

order adopting them, the Court finds this demand to be frivolous and disrespectful. Plaintiff's

13
14

disagreement with the form or substance of the Court's rulings is not grounds for reconsideration.
See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009);

15
16

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, Plaintiff protests that the Court has indicated that he is proceeding in forma pauperis,

17
18

when he in fact paid the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff is correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby

19

modifies its findings and recommendations (Doc. 3) and order adopting findings and

20

recommendations (Doc. 6) by deleting the phrase, "and in forma pauperis," from the first line of

21

each document. This error has no substantive effect on the Court's dismissal of the complaint in this

22
action, nor does correction of this error require reconsideration of the order as a whole.
23
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

24

Reconsideration is appropriate only if the district court is presented with newly discovered

25
26

evidence or has committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in controlling law.

27

3

28

In Rowan, addressing the application of treasury regulations to meals and lodging provided to the taxpayer's employees
when they worked its offshore rigs, the Court invalidated 26 C.F.R §§ 31.3121(a)-1(f) and 31.3306(b)-1 as failing "to
implement the congressional mandate in a consistent and reasonable manner." 452 U.S. at 253.

4

1

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880. In the absence of these three factors, this Court declines to

2

reconsider its dismissal of this case. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff paid the filing fee for

3

this case and deletes its erroneous references to his proceeding in forma pauperis.

4

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated: August 6, 2014
8

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5