United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
M. Hannall Lauck United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on numerous motions, objections, and notices filed by Defendant Lewis F. Carter following the Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff United States of America. Nearly all of these filings espouse essentially the same contentions Carter articulated, and the Court considered, before it granted summary judgment for the United States. Among these filings, Carter submits two Motions to Alter or Amend a Judgment, (ECF Nos. 77, 78), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),  and a Motion to Void the Order of the Court, (ECF No. 80), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(4). These three motions, while presented through the proper vehicles to challenge the Court's judgment, fail to meet any established standard under the invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before the Court adequately present the facts and legal contentions necessary to resolve Carter's motions, objections, and notices to the Court's grant of summary judgment, and argument would not aid the decisional process. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny all of Carter's motions, objections, and notices. (ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83.)
I. Procedural History
On December 31, 2015, the Court granted the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 56.) Despite that Order, Carter continued to pepper the Court with an additional twenty-one motions, objections, and notices, all of which, like before, fail to comply with applicable federal rules and ultimately lack merit. After Carter made these twenty filings in a one-month span, on February 2, 2016, the United States responded and requested that the Court deny all of Carter's requests. (ECF No. 82.) Carter then replied to the United States' Omnibus Response on February 11, 2016, and yet again raised the same contentions he has asserted for the entirety of these proceedings. (ECF No. 83.)
Of the twenty-one filings listed above, Carter made nine filings that, given their failure to state a basis for relief under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, do not require resolution by the Court. In these filings, Carter: (1) demanded a trial by jury, (ECF No. 60); (2) objected to the United States' purported mischaracterization of his position, (ECF No. 64); (3) provided a memorandum of law on federal taxation, (ECF No. 66); (4) objected three times to the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 70); (5) replied to the United States' objection to his request for disclosure of witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, (ECF No. 72); (6) objected to the United States' Motion to Amend the Court's Order, (ECF No. 81); and, (7) replied to the United States' Omnibus Response to his myriad filings, (ECF No. 83). The Court addresses the remaining twelve filings below. (ECF Nos. 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80.)
A. Motions Concerning Matters on Which the Court Has Already Ruled
On January 4, 2016, Carter filed three "motions" in which he reiterates his contention that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce tax laws against him. (ECF Nos. 61, 63, 65.) Then, on January 8, 2016, Carter made a motion to strike the the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a failure to establish the jurisdiction of the Court. (ECF No. 73.) The Court clearly rejected this position in its last opinion, and it reaffirms that stance here. (Dec. 31, 2015 Mem. Op. 10-11, ECF No. 55.) Because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court will deny these motions.
Carter also moves the Court to postpone his trial to thirty (30) days following a disclosure of the authorities granting the Court jurisdiction. (ECF No. 63.) The Court already has granted the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby eliminating the need for the trial Carter wishes to postpone. Similarly, despite Carter's contentions throughout his filings, granting summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not infringe on his constitutional right to a trial by jury. Thus, the Court will deny this motion.
Carter additionally reasserts his argument that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel prevent the Court from entering its order granting the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 65.) Carter again misconstrues the nature of the proceedings. By "accepting" and acknowledging the pleadings from the United States, the Court does not "adopt" the arguments within them. Therefore, the Court's ultimate decision articulated in the Memorandum Opinion, (ECF No. 55), does not contradict anything on the record and the doctrines of collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel do not prevent the Court from ruling as it has.
Finally, Carter filed three motions requesting the Court to take judicial notice of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. (ECF Nos. 59, 62, 67.) With respect to two Supreme Court decisions, Carter previously requested the Court to take judicial notice of them in April 2015. (ECF Nos. 5, 7.) The Court denied these motions as moot. (ECF No. 9.) The Court will deny the present motions as moot for the reasons previously articulated.
B. Motion to Certify the Question
On January 8, 2016, Carter filed a motion requesting the Court to certify the question concerning subject matter jurisdiction and the ability to enforce an income tax against him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (ECF No. 71.) Carter urges the Court to allow him to make this interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit solely based on his belief that the Court has failed to reveal to him the constitutional grounds upon which it has the authority to hear and decide his case. (ECF No. 71.) The Court already has identified the grounds for subject matter jurisdiction and its ability to enforce the United States tax code against ...