UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHAFFEE et al

Filing 51

ORDER Denying 47 Motion to Amend and Directing Submission of Proposed Judgment. (Proposed Judgment Submitted to CM/Utilities/Proposed Orders by 8/18/2020.) Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

Case 1:18-cv-11559-TLL-PTM ECF No. 51 filed 08/11/20

PageID.537

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 18-11559
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

RANDY J. CHAFFEE,
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
OTSEGO COUNTY
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND AND DIRECTING SUMISSION OF
PROPOSED JUDGMENT
On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff the United States of America filed a complaint against
Defendant Randy J. Chaffee. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks to obtain judgment on Chaffee’s unpaid
taxes and unpaid tax penalties and to enforce tax liens on Chaffee’s real property.1
The complaint was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris for resolution of pretrial
matters. ECF No. 11. On May 30, 2019, Chaffee filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 26. The next
day, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Chaffee. ECF No. 24. Judge
Morris issued a report, recommending that Chaffee’s motion to dismiss be denied and Plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 35. Chaffee subsequently filed
objections to Judge Morris’s report and recommendation. ECF No. 37. His objections included
allegations that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, that the IRS did not furnish him
with tax assessments, that he sent multiple 1040 Forms to the IRS under duress, that he has no

1

Plaintiff named the State of Michigan and Otsego County as Defendants because they have “or may claim an interest
in the [p]roperty.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.2-3. Plaintiff represented that it intends to resolve any issue of priority as to
Chaffee’s property by stipulation with the State of Michigan and Otsego County. ECF No. 24 at PageID.129 n. 1.

Case 1:18-cv-11559-TLL-PTM ECF No. 51 filed 08/11/20

PageID.538

Page 2 of 3

obligation to pay taxes, and that Judge Morris was conspiring against him. ECF No. 37. His
objections were overruled and the Report and Recommendation was adopted. ECF No. 46.
Chaffee has now filed a motion to amend the Court’s judgment. ECF No. 47. For the
following reasons, the motion will be denied.
I.
Chaffee is seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). That Rule allows a
party to file a “motion to alter or amend a judgment.” Id. Motions under Rule 59(e) may be granted
“if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling
law, or to prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834
(6th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). “Rule 59(e) motions cannot be used to present new
arguments that could have been raised prior to judgment.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472,
475 (6th Cir. 2008). If a party is effectively attempting to “‘re-argue a case’ . . . the district court
may well deny the Rule 59(e) motion on that ground.” Id. (quoting Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). Likewise, a Rule 59(e) motion is
not an appropriate vehicle to “‘submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in
the exercise of reasonable diligence.’” Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Cont’l
Biomass Indus., Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (quoting Nagle Industries, Inc.
v. Ford Motor Company, 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997)).
II.
Chaffee’s motion will be denied because he has not presented any new arguments in his
motion, instead recycling arguments from his previous briefings. This includes his previous
challenges to the Court’s personal jurisdiction and his contentions that he is not a “taxpayer” under
U.S. law.

-2-

Case 1:18-cv-11559-TLL-PTM ECF No. 51 filed 08/11/20

PageID.539

Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, Defendant Randy J. Chaffee’s motion to amend judgment, ECF No. 47, is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to submit a proposed judgment
through the Court’s online utility feature no later than August 18, 2020, so that judgment may be
entered consistent with the Court’s previous order, ECF No. 46, which granted Plaintiff’s motion
for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 24.

Dated: August 11, 2020

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and to RANDY
J. CHAFFEE, 1794 McGregor Road, Vanderbilt, MI 49795 by first
class U.S. mail on August 11, 2020.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-3-