United States of America v. Turner
Filing
31
ORDER denying 26 Defendant's Motion to lift Order of Permanent Injunction. Signed by Chief District Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 5/17/2022. (jpp)
Case 3:13-cv-01827-DMS-NLS Document 31 Filed 05/17/22 PageID.306 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No.: 3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
MICHAEL I. TURNER,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Defendant.
15
16
17
On December 8, 2021, Defendant Michael Turner (“Defendant” or “Turner”) filed
18
a motion to lift the permanent injunction entered by this Court on April 30, 2014. (ECF
19
No. 26.) That injunction, to which Defendant consented, enjoins Defendant from engaging
20
in federal tax preparation services. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff United States of America filed
21
an opposition (ECF No. 28), and Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 29.) The matter is fully
22
briefed and submitted on the papers. (ECF No. 30.) For the reasons set forth below,
23
Defendant’s motion is denied.
24
25
26
27
28
I.
BACKGROUND
This case began when the United States filed a civil complaint against Turner on
August 7, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) The United States alleged that Turner repeatedly prepared
tax returns that unlawfully understated his customers’ tax liability, and thus sought to
1
3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Case 3:13-cv-01827-DMS-NLS Document 31 Filed 05/17/22 PageID.307 Page 2 of 6
1
enjoin him from preparing others’ federal tax returns. (Id.) Turner stipulated to entry of
2
the permanent injunction on April 29, 2014 (ECF No. 20), after being charged and
3
convicted in a parallel criminal case, United States v. Turner, 13-cr-3808 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
4
In that case, Turner pleaded guilty to a violation of 26 U.S.C. §7206(1) (willfully making
5
a false statement on a tax return) for omitting taxable income when filing his own tax return
6
and acknowledged in his plea agreement that he had falsified federal income tax returns
7
for third parties. (United States v. Turner, 13-cr-3808, ECF No. 8.) Turner was sentenced
8
in March 2014 in that case to three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution in the
9
sum of $66,821.54. (Id., ECF No. 22.)
10
II.
11
DISCUSSION
12
Rule 60(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a court may relieve a party from a final
13
judgment, order, or proceeding where: “(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
14
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
15
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.
16
Civ. P. 60(b). Here, Defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(5) based on equity, and under
17
Rule 60(b)(6) based on extraordinary circumstances.1
18
A. Rule 60(b)(5)
19
The Supreme Court has held that Rule 60(b)(5) can provide relief from a judgment
20
that is no longer equitable when there is “a significant change in facts or law,” and the
21
revision is “suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Co.,
22
502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). Where the movant consented to the order, they generally cannot
23
rely on circumstances anticipated at the time of the order and bear a “heavy burden” to
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also argues for relief by analogizing to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which
concerns modification of prison sentences. However, the instant motion involves only the
injunction against Turner in this civil case, not Turner’s related criminal conviction. The
reasoning of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is thus inapplicable.
2
3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Case 3:13-cv-01827-DMS-NLS Document 31 Filed 05/17/22 PageID.308 Page 3 of 6
1
show grounds for relief. Id. The Ninth Circuit has clarified that “Rufo sets forth a general,
2
flexible standard for all petitions brought under the equity provision of Rule 60(b)(5).”
3
Bellevue Manor Assocs. v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule
4
60(b)(5) requires the Court to “take all the circumstances into account” id. at 1256,
5
including the public interest and the judiciary’s interest in the finality of judgments. Id. at
6
1253, 1257; S.E.C. v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir. 2001). Changed circumstances
7
that make compliance with a judgment “substantially more onerous” can be grounds for
8
relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Coldicutt, 258 F.3d at 942.
9
1. Changed Circumstances
10
Here, Turner argues the changed circumstance is his economic hardship, caused by
11
the caregiving responsibilities he undertook for his wife, his wife’s passing and related loss
12
of family income, and now his caregiving responsibilities for his stepson. (ECF No. 26-1
13
at 3–4.) Turner avers that these conditions have rendered him unable to find employment
14
and placed him in financial difficulty, but that lifting the permanent injunction would allow
15
him to once again earn income from tax preparation. (Id. at 4–6.)
16
The United States correctly points out in its opposition that “Turner’s motion does
17
not provide information about what efforts, if any, he has made to find employment outside
18
of preparing tax returns.” (ECF No. 28 at 4.) While Turner provides additional information
19
in his reply (ECF No. 29), he fails to demonstrate that his current circumstances warrant
20
equitable relief. Turner provides emails chronicling his attempts to find various types of
21
work. (ECF No. 29-4.) The emails date from 2012—before the instant injunction was
22
ordered—up to March 3, 2020. (Id. at 1.) However, even the most recent emails reference
23
only Turner’s responsibilities caring for his wife, not his current situation since his wife
24
passed in July 2020 and he began caring for his stepson in October 2020. These emails
25
show Turner declining to interview for full-time jobs that require travel, which were
26
understandably not compatible with caring for his wife. (Id. at 1–2.) They do not show
27
recent attempts to obtain part-time employment, or work that can be done partially or
28
wholly remotely, which has become more common since the COVID-19 pandemic.
3
3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Case 3:13-cv-01827-DMS-NLS Document 31 Filed 05/17/22 PageID.309 Page 4 of 6
1
Further, Turner’s reply notes his stepson does not contribute financially to the household
2
but it does not address what other support his stepson receives, such as In-Home Supportive
3
Services (with Turner or another as the caregiver), which might free up Turner’s time to
4
work or provide needed income.
5
The Court acknowledges that Turner’s situation is a challenging one, but he has not
6
demonstrated that equity requires lifting the instant injunction given the other options
7
available to Turner to support himself and his stepson. While Turner notes complying with
8
the injunction is now “substantially more onerous,” his family commitments make work
9
generally more onerous, not abstaining from tax return preparation specifically. See
10
Coldicutt, 258 F.3d at 942. As noted in the opposition, “It is not onerous to require Turner
11
to engage in any other means of earning a living besides preparing taxes …” (ECF No. 28
12
at 9, emphasis added). Turner’s motion itself notes that “Tax return preparation offers him
13
a means” to earn income, not that it is his only option to do so, or that the injunction limits
14
his employment or income-earning generally. (ECF No. 26-1 at 4, emphasis added).
15
Thus, Turner has not shown his current caregiving responsibilities foreclose the
16
possibility of work besides tax return preparation such that the current injunction is no
17
longer equitable. There are other types of flexible work beyond tax preparation, which
18
would allow Turner to earn income without modifying an injunction that enjoins only the
19
specific activity in question. Further, the public interest in the integrity of the tax system
20
and the judicial interest in the finality of judgments weigh against dissolving the injunction.
21
See Bellevue, 165 F.3d at 1265–67 (noting the Court must take all circumstances into
22
account).
23
2. Suitably Tailored Relief
24
Turner’s requested relief is also not suitably tailored as he seeks to dissolve the entire
25
civil injunction; and, even if the Court so ordered, it is not clear that Turner would again
26
be allowed to prepare tax returns. Turner must reapply for a preparer tax identification
27
number (“PTIN”), which the IRS may not grant given his felony conviction for tax return
28
fraud. See 31 C.F.R. § 10.8 (preparers must have a PTIN); 31 C.F.R. § 10.50(a) (the IRS
4
3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Case 3:13-cv-01827-DMS-NLS Document 31 Filed 05/17/22 PageID.310 Page 5 of 6
1
may suspend or disbar practitioners for sanctionable conduct); 31 C.F.R. § 10.51(a)(1)
2
(conviction under the Federal tax laws is sanctionable conduct).
3
The IRS does allow petitions for reinstatement. 31 C.F.R. § 10.81. Turner argues
4
that the IRS approves a high percentage of these petitions, but his source refers to petitions
5
by individuals suspended or disbarred by the IRS itself and does indicate whether any of
6
these petitioners also had criminal convictions. See Office of Professional Responsibility
7
Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018, available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5638.pdf.
8
While Turner argues that he should be granted the opportunity to petition the IRS, he
9
concedes that even the full dissolution of the injunction by this Court may not enable him
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
to again prepare third party tax returns. (ECF No. 29 at 6.)
Turner appears to have faced significant personal challenges and undertaken much
caring for others, while demonstrating remorse for his criminal fraud. His desire to earn
additional income through work is commendable. However, he has not met his “heavy
burden” to show he requires relief from an order to which he consented when the possibility
of lost income from tax preparation was foreseeable. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 393.
B. Rule 60 (b)(6)
Rule 60(b)(6) allows a party to seek relief from judgment for “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). It is a “catchall provision” that applies only when
the reason for granting relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in Rule
60. United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other
20
grounds by United States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2010). The catchall “has
21
been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be
22
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely
23
action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
24
Here, Rule 60(b)(6) is inapplicable. As 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision, relief under
25
that section must be for a reason beyond those elsewhere enumerated by the Rule.
26
Equitable relief from prospectively enforcing a judgment is separately listed under 60(b)(5)
27
and appropriately argued under that Rule by Turner. However, Rule 60(b)(6) requires
28
“extraordinary circumstances” that prevent the party from litigating the case. Washington,
5
3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Case 3:13-cv-01827-DMS-NLS Document 31 Filed 05/17/22 PageID.311 Page 6 of 6
1
394 F.3d at 1157. That is not the case here, where Plaintiff’s situation is one of changed
2
circumstances after judgment.
3
III.
4
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
5
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to lift the order of permanent
6
injunction is denied without prejudice.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2022
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
3:13-cv-1827-DMS-NLS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?