United States of America v. Meyer
ORDER denying 68 Defendant's Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 08/29/2017. (TLU) cc: Joseph D. Meyer. Modified on 8/29/2017 (lmb).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Civil No. 16-774 ADM/LIB
Joseph D. Meyer,
Hilarie E. Snyder, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, on behalf of
Joseph D. Meyer, pro se.
On July 14, 2017, the undersigned United States District Judge granted Plaintiff United
States of America’s (the “Government”) Motion for Summary Judgment, finding Defendant
Joseph D. Meyer (“Meyer”) liable for unpaid federal income tax for tax years 2002 and 2009.
See Mem. Op. Order [Docket No. 66] (the “July 14, 2017 Order”). On August 25, 2017, Meyer
filed a Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment [Docket No. 68] (the “Motion”). Meyer seeks
an order reversing the July 14, 2017 Order, abating his federal tax assessments for tax years 2002
and 2009, and a refund of money withheld by the Government for tax years 2002 and 2009.
Meyer’s Motion is properly characterized as a request for reconsideration under Local
Rule 7.1(g), which is the “functional equivalent” of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th
Meyer stylizes the Motion as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(a)(2), but Rule 59(a)(2) is applicable only when judgment was entered after a nonjury trial,
not on summary judgment. Accordingly, the Motion will be construed as a motion under Rule
59(e), which “serve[s] a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.
1988) (citation omitted).
Cir. 1999). “Compelling circumstances” must be shown to justify granting a party’s request to
file a motion for reconsideration. D. Minn. LR 7.1(g).
Meyer argues that the July 14, 2017 Order is erroneous because it: 1) relies on nonbinding district court cases; 2) ignores appellate decisions holding that a United States Post
Office Form 3877 is required to prove a Notice of Deficiency (“NOD”) was properly mailed; 3)
improperly considered Form 4340; and 4) incorrectly determined that the Government carried its
burden of calculating Meyer’s unpaid federal tax liabilities for tax years 2002 and 2009. Meyer
also complains that the July 14, 2017 Order impermissibly bolstered the Government’s case.
Meyer’s Motion is denied. The bulk of Meyer’s arguments were previously considered
and rejected, and Meyer’s new substantive arguments—to the extent that the Motion raises
any—are unavailing here because they could have been raised in opposition to the Government’s
motion for summary judgment. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930,
933 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that Rule 59 “cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new
legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of
judgment”). Finally, Meyer’s argument that the Court “bolster[ed] the Government’s case” takes
aim at footnote 8 of the July 14, 2017 Order. Far from bolstering the Government’s case,
footnote 8 faults the Government for its inability to produce copies of documents in this digital
In essence, the Motion seeks nothing more than “a second bite at the apple,” which the
rules prohibit and, accordingly, falls short of the “compelling circumstances” necessary to justify
a motion to reconsider. D. Minn. LR 7.1(g).
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that: Defendant Joseph D. Meyer’s Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct
Judgment [Docket No. 68] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 29, 2017.
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?