Atuegwu v. IRS USA
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01587
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Atuegwu v. IRS USA, Judge Swain denied Atuegwu’s motions to reopen the dismissed action under Rules 59(e) and 60(b).
Chinwe Atuegwu’s request to change or obtain relief from the earlier dismissal was denied; the case remains closed. IRS USA and STOP B225 were not required to defend against a reopened action in this order.
What happened
Chinwe Atuegwu, representing herself, challenged the earlier dismissal of her case against IRS USA and STOP B225. The court had dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) and for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.
The court treated Atuegwu’s filing as a request to change the judgment under Rule 59(e) and as a request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). It found that she had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, and had not shown grounds for relief under any part of Rule 60(b), including extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Swain denied the motion. The action remains closed, and the clerk was directed to accept only filings addressed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Atuegwu v. IRS USA · No. 1:22-cv-01587
- Laura Swain
- July 1, 2022
Background
Chinwe Atuegwu filed the action against IRS USA and STOP B225 without a lawyer. In an order and judgment entered on April 29, 2022, the court dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Atuegwu later submitted a filing labeled a motion for an extension of time to file written objections, challenging the dismissal.
The court treated that submission as both a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). The court noted that it was reading the filing liberally because Atuegwu was representing herself.
Rule 59(e)
Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. The moving party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court held that Atuegwu had not shown that it overlooked any controlling decisions or factual matters concerning the dismissal. The court therefore denied relief under Rule 59(e).
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief. The court held that, even under a liberal reading of Atuegwu’s motion, she had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. The court therefore denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5).
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision allowing relief for another reason justifying it. The court held that Atuegwu had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under that provision.
Disposition
The court denied the motion. The action is closed. The clerk was directed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court stated that, if Atuegwu filed other documents that were frivolous or meritless, it could require her to explain why she should not be barred from filing further documents in the action. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.