Futia v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06965
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Futia v. United States, Judge Briccetti denied reconsideration and denied fee-free appeal status.
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., and the United States. The order left the earlier dismissal in place, denied reconsideration, and denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Futia v. United States, Anthony J. Futia, Jr., who was representing himself, challenged the United States’ taxation of his income and sought an order stopping monthly tax levies from his Social Security payments.
The Court had previously granted the United States’ motion to dismiss and denied Futia’s request for preliminary relief as moot. Futia later submitted a letter demanding a jury trial, which the Court treated as a request to reconsider that earlier decision.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion for reconsideration because Futia identified no facts or legal precedent warranting a change. The Court also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Futia v. United States · No. 7:22-cv-06965
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 23, 2023
Background
Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action alleging that the United States violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by taxing his income while failing to respond to his petitions for redress. He also sought preliminary relief to stop the United States from levying $1,702.86 per month from his Social Security payments for unpaid taxes and to return funds already levied while the case was pending.
On April 24, 2023, the Court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss and denied Futia’s motion for preliminary relief as moot. On May 3, 2023, Futia filed a letter demanding a jury trial and referring to the April 24 decision. The Court treated the letter as a motion for reconsideration, which asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling.
Court’s analysis
The Court explained that reconsideration is appropriate only if the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The motion should not repeat arguments that the Court already considered and decided.
The Court found Futia’s arguments without merit. It held that he had not identified any facts or legal precedent warranting reconsideration of the April 24 Opinion and Order.
Disposition
The Court denied Futia’s motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal. The Court stated that chambers would mail a copy of the Order to Futia.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.