Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00127/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00127-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gary L. Sepp and Patricia A. Sepp, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-0127-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed a motion for new trial or, in the alternative,

motion to alter or amend the judgment. (Doc. 15). Plaintiffs contend that the Court erred in

its Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. 

 A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) shall be filed no

later than ten days after entry of the judgment. A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted (1) to

correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the moving party

presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) as necessary to prevent

manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Turner v.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). "A Rule

59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when

they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342

F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case 2:05-cv-00127-MHM Document 17 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

In their motion for new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, Plaintiffs have set

forth the issues for reconsideration as follows, (1) whether the Director's Warrant for

Distraint was required for Revenue Officer Wedepohl to engage in administrative levy and

distraint; and (2) whether Revenue Officer Wedepohl was required to serve the Notice of

Seizure upon the possessor of Plaintiff's property after the property had been surrendered to

the Internal Revenue Service. These were the same issues on which Plaintiffs presented

argument in support of their response opposing Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Court fully considered Plaintiffs' arguments when it ruled on Defendant's motion to

dismiss the complaint. The Court has considered the arguments Plaintiffs have presented in

support of their Rule 59(e) motion to the extent that Plaintiffs have offered a more detailed

explanation of their contentions. Plaintiffs have not shown manifest error of law or fact in

the Court's Order. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for new trial or, in the alternative, motion

to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 15), is denied

DATED this 25th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00127-MHM Document 17 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2