1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CHRISTOPHER HADSELL, Case No. 20-cv-03512-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 v. ALTER, AMEND, OR VACATE JUDGMENT 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY BY ITS Re: Dkt. No. 78 12 AGENCY, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On February 25, 2022, the Court granted the United States’s motion for summary 16 judgment and entered judgment accordingly. Dkt. Nos. 76, 77. Mr. Hadsell now moves pursuant 17 to Rule 59(e) to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. Dkt. No. 78. The United States opposes the 18 motion. Dkt. No. 79. Mr. Hadsell filed a reply. Dkt. No. 80. The matter was deemed suitable for 19 determination without oral argument. Dkt. No. 81; Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the 20 moving and responding papers, the Court denies Mr. Hadsell’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate 21 the judgment. 22 The Court may alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) upon a showing of one of four 23 grounds: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact; (2) the moving party 24 presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to 25 prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Turner v. 26 Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). A district court has 27 “considerable discretion” in deciding a Rule 59(e) motion. Id.. Rule 59(e) “offers an 1 resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani,

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and 2 citation omitted). Indeed, a Rule 59(e) motion “‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 circumstances[.]’”

(quoting Kona Enterps., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

, 890 (9th 4 Cir. 2000). Moreover, a Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise 5 arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon 6 Shipping Co. v. Baker,

, 485 n.5 (2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 7 See also Kona Enterps., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890 (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise 8 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised 9 earlier in the litigation.”). 10 Mr. Hadsell does not allege the discovery of new evidence or an intervening change in the 11 controlling law. Instead, he argues that the Court’s February 25, 2022 summary judgment order is 12 based on “clear errors resulting in a judgment that is manifestly unjust.” Dkt. No. 78 at 1, 7. 13 Specifically, he contends that the Court erred when it (1) “ruled determination/assessment is 14 outside immunity waiver”; (2) “ruled IRS’

(c) actions are outside immunity 15 waiver”; (3) “ruled §6402(g) bars review of refund offsets not ‘authorized by’ §6402(c)”; 16 (4) “ruled there is difference that matters between immunity waivers for the circumstances 17 between an FTCA claim and a §7433 claim”; (5) “implied that ‘Offsets Timing’ may not be at 18 issue”; and (6) “ruled that Hadsell’s tax payments were not paid pursuant to tax filings and notices 19 and demands.” Dkt. No. 78 at 7 (footnote omitted). 20 In its February 25, 2022 summary judgment order, as well as the prior order denying Mr. 21 Hadsell’s summary judgment motion, the Court discussed in detail the statutory framework at 22 issue and its application in this case. Dkt. No. 56 at 4-12; Dkt. No. 76 at 4-10. Mr. Hadsell’s 23 present Rule 59(e) motion does not provide a basis to alter or amend the Court’s decisions, or to 24 vacate the Court’s judgment. Most of Mr. Hadsell’s arguments amount to disagreements with the 25 Court’s rulings, and either were or could have been presented in his opposition to the United 26 States’s motion for summary judgment or in support of his affirmative motion for summary 27 judgment. See Dkt. No. 78 at 8-19; see also Dkt. Nos. 41, 44, 51, 57. While Mr. Hadsell may 1 || Bey v. Malec, No. 18-cv-02626-SI,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2020), aff'd sub 2 || nom. Bey v. Cristiani,

(9th Cir. 2021) (‘While courts within the Ninth Circuit 3 || have not strictly defined what constitutes clear error for Rule 59(e) motions, courts have generally 4 || found that mere doubts or disagreement about the wisdom of a prior decision of . . . [the] court 5 will not suffice.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Additionally, Mr. Hadsell’s 6 arguments based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Dkt. No. 78 at 13:14-23) do 7 not provide a legal basis for altering or amending the judgment under Rule 59(e), as he has not 8 asserted such aclaim. Baker,

n.5; Kona Enterps., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. 9 Mr. Hadsell also complains of other matters, which are immaterial to the Court’s 10 || conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Hadsell’s claim under

. He notes 11 that the February 25, 2022 summary judgment order (Dkt. No. 76 at 3:11) says that a portion of an 12 || overpayment was refunded to him, whereas Mr. Hadsell claims that he never received a refund of 5 13 any kind. Dkt. No. 78 at 8. He also points out that a portion of Exhibit A to the Declaration of 14 Ashleigh Edmonds (Dkt. No. 55-2) bears a date of November 3, 2021, and could not have been 3 15 produced in discovery as stated in the February 25 order (Dkt. No. 76 at 6n.1). Dkt. No. 78 at 15. 16 || Mr. Hadsell did not previously raise an issue about the production of the November 3, 2021 3 17 portion of Exhibit A to the Edmonds Declaration (see Dkt. No. 57 at 6-7). The Edmonds 18 Declaration cites that portion of Exhibit A to support an assertion about the purported amount of 19 || Mr. Hadsell’s past-due child support payments as of November 3, 2021. The Court did not cite or 20 || rely on Exhibit A to the Edmonds Declaration for that purpose. Neither of these claimed errors is 21 consequential to the ultimate disposition and judgment entered in this case. 22 Accordingly, Mr. Hadsell’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate the Court’s 23 || judgment is denied. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 16, 2022 26

28 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge