Johnson v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 661
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Roger C. Johnson, appearing pro se, sued the United States seeking refund of amounts he claimed were illegally levied from his pension and raised statutory, constitutional (Fourth Amendment), and tort claims.
- Plaintiff also applied for in forma pauperis status, which the court granted.
- The government moved to dismiss; on July 26, 2016 the Court of Federal Claims granted the motion, dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and entered final judgment.
- Plaintiff filed a timely motion for reconsideration under RCFC 59(e) nine days after judgment, arguing (1) the IRS admitted owing $61,381.19 (satisfying the full payment rule) and (2) a wrongful levy claim available to him as a trustee.
- The court found plaintiff failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances (no intervening law, new evidence, or clear error) and reiterated that the IRS notice was to the trust (not Johnson individually) and that a wrongful levy claim cannot be asserted by the person against whom the tax was assessed.
- The court denied the motion for reconsideration and left the dismissal and final judgment intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over tax refund claim | IRS admitted it owes $61,381.19; thus Johnson paid assessed tax and satisfied full-payment rule | Jurisdiction lacking because the IRS notice was to the trust; Johnson individually has no right to that sum | Court: No jurisdiction; admission pertains to the trust, not Johnson individually |
| Wrongful levy standing | As trustee, Johnson is a third party entitled to recover under wrongful levy statute | Levy and tax were assessed against Johnson; wrongful levy relief is only for third parties (not the person assessed) | Court: Johnson cannot plead third-party wrongful levy because tax/levy were assessed against him |
| Sufficiency of reconsideration grounds under RCFC 59(e) | Re-asserts earlier arguments and emphasizes alleged IRS admission and procedural errors | No new law, no new evidence, no clear error; prior ruling correct | Court: Motion denied for lack of extraordinary circumstances |
| Availability of equitable/constitutional/tort relief in this forum | Plaintiff maintains constitutional and tort claims tied to IRS actions | Court previously held lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims | Court: Claims remain nonjusticiable here; dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxus Energy Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 31 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for what constitutes a substantive RCFC 59(e) motion)
- Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (U.S.) (proceedings must draw to a close; finality principle)
- Yuba Nat. Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir.) (discretionary nature of reconsideration)
- Del. Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. ShawRoseNets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (grounds for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, clear error/manifest injustice)
- Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 779 (Fed. Cl.) (manifest injustice must be almost indisputable)