James R. Anderson v. United States of Am., Internal Revenue Serv. Timothy R. Farkus, 19 F.3d 18 (6th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
James R. Anderson v. United States of Am., Internal Revenue Serv. Timothy R. Farkus, 19 F.3d 18 (6th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the court did not abuse its discretion here because henthorn had ample opportunity to demonstrate the impropriety of sanctions by responding to the district court's show cause order. ⚠ not in text
37 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hackel v. Upgrade Inc. (mied, 2023-07-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Hackel v. Upgrade Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the court did not abuse its discretion here because henthorn had ample opportunity to demonstrate the impropriety of sanctions by responding to the district court's show cause order.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Shatter v. Atchinson Ford Sales, Inc
E.D. Mich. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the court did not abuse its discretion here because henthorn had ample opportunity to demonstrate the impropriety of sanctions by responding to the district court's show cause order.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pennington v. Tetra Tech, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Litig., 19 F.3d 18 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 Class counsel has asked for $1,494,135 in fees.
discussed Cited "see" Jaques v. Rardin
E.D. Mich. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bazuaye v. Bogan, 19 F.3d 18 , 1994 WL 75895, *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 1994) (prisoner’s claim that he was denied a minimum-security classification was not a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ) (citing Olim and Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir. 1992)).
discussed Cited "see" Coleman, Demitrius v. Terris, J.A.
E.D. Mich. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bazuaye v. Bogan, 19 F.3d 18 , 1994 WL 75895, *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 1994)(prisoner’s claim that he was denied a minimum security classification was not a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 )(citing Olim and Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir. 1992)).
discussed Cited "see" Duncan v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
W.D. Tenn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bazuaye v. Bogan, 19 F.3d 18 (6th Cir. 1994) (table decision) (prisoner’s “allegation that he was denied a minimum security classification” was not “a cognizable claim” under § 2241) (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983), and Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir. 1992)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James R. Anderson
v.
United States of America, Internal Revenue Service Timothy R. Farkus
93-4157.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mar 11, 1994.
19 F.3d 18
Unpublished
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #46,230 of 633,719
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (2)

19 F.3d 18

73 A.F.T.R.2d 94-1514

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
James R. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Internal Revenue Service; Timothy
R. Farkus, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-4157.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 11, 1994.

Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

James R. Anderson, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals a district court order denying his motion to reinstate his quiet title action filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2). The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

On April 28, 1992, the district court granted summary judgment for the United States concluding that the Internal Revenue Service had complied with all procedural and administrative collection regulations concerning the sale of Anderson's property. The sale was conducted in order to satisfy Anderson's tax liabilities.

3

On January 25, 1993, Anderson filed a motion requesting that the district court vacate its previous judgment based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2). The district court denied the motion noting that the "new evidence" consisted of an affidavit from a paralegal which stated that it was the paralegal's opinion that Anderson did not receive proper notice as to the collection activities of the IRS.

4

In his timely appeal, Anderson attempts to relitigate the merits of the underlying judgment. He requests oral argument. The appellees have moved the court to remand the case back to the district court so the district court can enter a corrected judgment.

5

An order denying relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. See In re Salem Mortgage Co., 791 F.2d 456, 459 (6th Cir.1986). An abuse of discretion exists when the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment. Amernational Indus., Inc. v. Action-Tungsram, Inc., 925 F.2d 970, 975 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2857 (1991).

6

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anderson's motion. Anderson did not present any new evidence which justified the granting of Rule 60(b)(2) relief. Davis by Davis v. Jellico Community Hosp., Inc., 912 F.2d 129, 135 (6th Cir.1990). Furthermore, Anderson cannot argue on appeal the merits of the underlying judgment. See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7 (1978); Peake v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Marquette, 717 F.2d 1016, 1020 (6th Cir.1983).

7

Accordingly, we deny the request for oral argument, deny the motion for remand, and affirm the district court's order. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.