Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02432/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02432-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ROY MCNEIL, No. 2:08-cv-02432-MCE-KJN P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, sued the Internal Revenue

Service (“IRS”) for a tax refund. The IRS moved to dismiss on

grounds that the Plaintiff did not make any claim for refund

before instituting the present lawsuit. Because of that failure,

the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that the

matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on

grounds that the government was entitled to sovereign immunity

from suit. By Order filed April 5, 2010, this Court adopted

those findings and recommendations and dismissed the case.

Case 2:08-cv-02432-MCE -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/04/10 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

Plaintiff neither opposed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss nor

filed any objection to the findings and recommendations issued by

the magistrate judge. After judgment was entered in accordance

with this Court’s Order dismissing the case, however, Plaintiff

filed a one page letter with the Court asking that the case be

“reopened” because the IRS still “owes me $633.00.” The Court

will construe that letter as a Motion for Reconsideration.

Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for

reconsideration must show what new or different facts are claimed

to exist at the time of reconsideration which did not exist

beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. 

Plaintiff’s instant request fails to meet that standard. Not

only did he fail to oppose the Motion to Dismiss at the time it

was made or object to the findings and recommendations issued by

the Magistrate Judge thereon, he also provides absolutely no new

or different facts or circumstances to indicate that

reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Docket No. 28) is accordingly DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02432-MCE -KJN Document 29 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2