Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-03512
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Judge Demarchi denied Hadsell v. United States’s motion to change or cancel the earlier judgment.
Christopher Hadsell, whose request to change or cancel the prior judgment was denied; the United States defendants retained the judgment in their favor.
What happened
In Hadsell v. United States of America, the court had earlier granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Christopher Hadsell. Hadsell asked the court to change or cancel that judgment under Rule 59(e), arguing that the earlier decision contained serious legal and factual errors.
Hadsell challenged the court’s rulings about tax refunds, refund offsets, immunity waivers, the timing of offsets, and his tax payments. He did not claim that new evidence had been discovered or that controlling law had changed. The United States opposed his motion.
Judge Demarchi denied Hadsell’s motion. The court said most of his arguments repeated disagreements that had been raised, or could have been raised, before judgment, and that the other alleged errors did not affect the outcome.
The detailed version
- Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury · No. 5:20-cv-03512
- Virginia Demarchi
- May 16, 2022
Background
On February 25, 2022, the court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment. Christopher Hadsell then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter, amend, or vacate that judgment. The matter was decided on the written submissions without oral argument.
Rule 59(e) standard
The court explained that it may change a judgment under Rule 59(e) if the moving party shows a clear legal or factual error, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a need to prevent serious unfairness, or an intervening change in controlling law. Such a motion is not a way to relitigate earlier arguments or raise evidence and arguments that could have been presented before judgment.
Hadsell’s arguments
Hadsell did not assert newly discovered evidence or a change in controlling law. Instead, he argued that the earlier summary-judgment decision contained clear errors that produced an unjust result. His listed challenges concerned whether tax assessments and determinations, Internal Revenue Service actions under 26 U.S.C. § 6402(c), and refund offsets were covered by a waiver of government immunity; whether § 6402(g) barred review of certain offsets; the difference between immunity waivers under the Federal Tort Claims Act and 26 U.S.C. § 7433; whether the timing of offsets could be considered; and whether his tax payments were made pursuant to tax filings, notices, and demands.
Hadsell also raised arguments based on the First Amendment, but the court said he had not asserted a First Amendment claim. He further disputed statements in the earlier order about receiving a refund and about the production date of part of an exhibit. The court said it had not relied on that exhibit for the purpose Hadsell identified and that neither claimed error affected the judgment or the court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over his claim under § 7433.
Ruling
The court concluded that most of Hadsell’s arguments were disagreements with its earlier rulings and either had been, or could have been, presented before judgment. The court found no basis to alter or amend its decisions or vacate the judgment. It therefore denied Hadsell’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.