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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2363 WBS JFM PS

vs.

MARK L. BRYAN,

 

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendant, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(4) for relief from the judgment entered in this action on July 25, 2005. 

Defendant Mark L. Bryan (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") is an individual

who has previously brought actions against the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter the "IRS")

seeking relief from the assessment and collection of taxes and liens. See Bryan v. Gillen, CIV 1

S-04-1481 DFL GGH PS; Bryan v. Gillen, CIV S-04-1942 DFL GGH PS.) Defendant has filed

UCC Financing Statements which are liens encumbering property of certain government

employees who were involved in the IRS seizures of defendant’s property and the related

litigation thereafter. The United States filed its complaint on November 4, 2004 seeking

Case 2:04-cv-02363-WBS -JFM Document 64 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

declaratory relief that the UCC Financing Statements filed by defendant are null, void and of no

legal effect and for permanent injunctions enjoining defendant from filing any further documents

which purport to create a non-consensual lien or encumbrance against the person or property of

any government employee.

Both parties filed dispositive motions. On June 20, 2005, the undersigned issued

findings and recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied and

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted. On July 25, 2005, the district court adopted

the findings and recommendations in toto and judgment was entered. On August 3, 2005,

defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, claiming the judgment is void for lack of

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order,

or proceeding for the following reasons: (4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a

prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or

otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment

should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion

shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2),

and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or

proceeding was entered or taken.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In the instant motion, defendant continues to argue, inter alia, that his

“Agreement/Contracts Notice of International Commercial Claim in Admiralty Administrative

Remedy,” file #MLB04022004, and “Notice of International Commercial Claim Within the

Admiralty ab initio Administrative Remedy,” file #MLB1204JENNINGS, (Docket Nos. 41 and

42) are valid and binding and support the UCC Financing Statements; thus the liens filed are

valid and should not be removed. 

Defendant’s arguments were raised by defendant and resolved adversely to him in

the proceedings on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See Findings and

Recommendations, filed June 20, 2005, at 5-7.) Defendant has not provided any evidence

Case 2:04-cv-02363-WBS -JFM Document 64 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

demonstrating that the UCC Financing Statements are based on legitimate debt or law, or

controverting the undisputed facts set forth in the June 20, 2005 findings and recommendations. 

(Id. at 6-7.) Defendant has raised no grounds sufficient to support relief from the judgment

entered in this action; thus, defendant is not entitled to relief from the judgment entered in this

action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s August 3, 2005

motion for relief from judgment be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 23, 2005. 

001

brya2363.60b

Case 2:04-cv-02363-WBS -JFM Document 64 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 3