USA v. Breaux et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM RULING. The 70 Consolidated Motion and Memorandum for Reconsideration filed by pro se defendant Mr. Breaux, ECF 70 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert R Summerhays on 7/29/2022. (crt,Crick, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CASE NO. 6:19-CV-01393

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

KEITH L BREAUX ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B.
WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is pro se defendant Keith Breaux’s [“Mr. Breaux”] Motion
and for Reconsideration and For Setting Aside Summary Judgment Motion1, ECF
70. This Motion is opposed by the plaintiff the United States of America (“USA”),
ECF 72. For the following reasons, this Motion is DENIED.
Background
On October 25, 2019, the USA filed its Complaint against Mr. Breaux seeking
the following relief: (1) reduction to judgment of the unpaid federal income tax
liabilities of Breaux for tax years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010,
and 2011 in the amount of $420,497.41 through October 17, 2019, plus pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest thereafter; and (b) order of foreclosure of the federal tax
liens that arose upon the assessments of these liabilities against a parcel of real

The full title of the Motion filed by Mr. Breaux is “Consolidated Motion and Memorandum for
Reconsideration De Novo Anew and For Setting Aside Summary Judgment Motion/Grant Consideration
(Striking), Setting Aside Default/Judgment, Moving to Reopen, and Quash.”
1

property in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, that Breaux owns, ECF 1. Mr. Breaux was
personally served on January 9, 2020, ECF 5. On February 20, 2020, Breaux filed
a Motion to Dismiss arguing that he was not liable for the unpaid taxes, because he
is not required to pay income tax, ECF 12. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on
September 16, 2020, and on September 22, 2020, Mr. Breaux filed his answer, ECF
34, 37.
The USA moved for summary judgment on November 24, 2021, on the
grounds that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Mr.
Breaux owed the assessed tax liabilities and/or regarding the USA’s right to
foreclose its federal tax liens against his property, ECF 49. On December 13, 2021,
Mr. Breaux filed a Motion for Extension of Time asking for a 20-day extension to
respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 51. The Court granted Mr.
Breaux’s motion giving Mr. Breaux until January 5, 2022, to respond, ECF 53. Mr.
Breaux did not respond to the motion and on January 21, 2022, the Court granted
the USA’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding the Motion valid in its conclusion
that Mr. Breaux has not shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, Rec.
Doc. 54. On February 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in favor of
the USA’s and against Keith L. Breaux in the amount of $438,595.25, as of
November 24, 2021, for his unpaid federal income tax liabilities and applicable fraud

Page 2 of 5

penalties for 2002-2007 and 2009-2011, including penalties, interest, and other
statutory additions permitted by law, ECF 57.
On June 27, 2022, Mr. Breaux filed the instant motion entitled Consolidated
Motion and Memorandum for Reconsideration De Novo Anew and For Setting
Aside Summary Judgment Motion/Grant Consideration (Striking), Setting Aside
Default/Judgment, Moving to Reopen, and Quash, Rec. Doc. 70. Considering the
pro se status of the defendant and giving him wide latitude, the Court construes this
as a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s January 21, 2022, Ruling granting
the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the USA, ECF 54, and/or this Court’s
February 7, 2022, Order and Judgment, ECF 57.
Law and Discussion
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a motion
for reconsideration. Sapienza v. Trahan, 2019 WL 1246363 (W.D. La. 2019) (citing
Cormier v. Turnkey Cleaning Servs., L.L.C., 295 F. Supp. 3d 717, 719 (W.D. La.
2017). Nevertheless, motions requesting reconsideration of court orders have been
construed as falling under Rule 54(b), Rule 59(e), or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Id. Rules 59 and 60, apply to final judgments. Cormier, supra.
A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of
judgment or the issuance of an interlocutory order is treated as a motion to alter or
amend judgment under Rule 59(e), while a motion for reconsideration that is filed
Page 3 of 5

more than twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, or the issuance of an order
is treated as a motion seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).” Sapienza,
supra. (Mosing v. Boston, 2017 WL 1573172, at *2 (W.D. La. 2017); see also
Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998).
Because the relevant ruling and judgment were entered on January 20, 2022, and
February 7, 2022, respectively, and the instant motion was filed more than twentyeight days thereafter, on June 27, 2022, the motion will be treated as one seeking
relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

The purpose of Rule 60(b) is to balance the principle of finality of a judgment
with the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.”
Page 4 of 5

Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005). In general,
reconsideration of a judgment “is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations
omitted).
The Court has reviewed Mr. Breaux’s Consolidated Motion and
Memorandum and finds that Mr. Breaux has asserted no new non-frivolous grounds
for relief from the judgment and that he has failed to meet any of the specified
reasons for relief set forth in Rule 60(b). Accordingly,
The Consolidated Motion and Memorandum for Reconsideration filed by pro
se defendant Mr. Breaux, ECF 70 is DENIED.

THUS DONE in Chambers on this 29th day of July, 2022.

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5