Hand v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 30984 Summary Calendar.,30984 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 441 F.2d 529 |
| Parties | James J. HAND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Joseph M. Howard, Joseph H. Reiter, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant; Gerald J. Galling-house, U. S. Atty., of counsel.
Guy Johnson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
The United States appeals from an order of the district court granting the motion of James J. Hand, Jr., for a new trial under Rule 60(b) (6), F.R.Civ.P.1 We affirm.
On September 12, 1961, Government agents raided Hand's place of business, a restaurant and bar in New Orleans known as the Austin Inn. On the basis of the gambling records seized in the raid, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed Hand $450,311.69 as due and owing in taxes, interest, and penalties for the period from February 1957 through September 12, 1961.2 Hand paid $1,632.20 of the assessment and initiated this action for a refund. The United States counterclaimed for the balance of the assessment.
At the trial Hand testified that he had never accepted any wagers during the period in question. On the other hand, two cooks and an undercover agent testified that at various times they had observed Hand accept wagers. Moreover, the Government introduced into evidence Hand's plea of guilty to a 1963 charge of failing to pay the federal gambling tax for the period from July 25, 1961, through September 12, 1961. In addition, the Government attempted to introduce the gambling records seized in the September 12, 1961, raid; however, the court ruled that those records were inadmissible because they were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure.
In response to special interrogatories the jury concluded that Hand had in fact been in the business of accepting wagers, that the amount of wagers accepted per day during the period from February 1957 to June 1959 was $800, and that the total amount of wagers accepted during the period from July 25, 1961, through September 12, 1961, was $1,141.3 In accordance with the jury's verdict, the court on January 5, 1970, entered judgment for the United States on its counterclaim in the amount of $77,348.12. The disparity in the amounts strongly implies that the jury was confused and brought in answers to interrogatories for which there is no rational explanation.4
On January 9, 1970, Hand filed an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict or a new trial. The court denied the motion on May 12, 1970. On June 11, 1970, Hand filed a motion under Rule 60(b), F.R. Civ.P., for relief from the final judgment entered on January 5, 1970. The court granted the motion on the ground that "the ends of justice would best be served by granting plaintiff a new trial", citing Pizzarello v. United States, 2 Cir. 1969, 408 F.2d 579. The United States has appealed.
Rule 60(b) allows the district court, "on motion and upon such terms as are just," to relieve a party from the effects of a final judgment for any of a number of reasons. Among those reasons are mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, release, and satisfaction. Subdivision (b) (6) adds the catch-all phrase "or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." The only express limitation on motions under Rule 60(b) (6) is that they must be made "within a reasonable time."
Motions for relief from a final judgment are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court, guided of course by accepted legal principles. Therefore, in the absence of an abuse of discretion we do not review the district court's determination. See, e. g., SEC v. Farm & Home Agency, Inc., 7 Cir. 1959, 270 F.2d 891, 892; 3 W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1323 (C. Wright ed. 1958). In the circumstances of this case — the jury's apparently inconsistent answers to interrogatories, the Government's possibly improper use of illegally seized evidence, and the lack of other evidence to support the Commissioner's assessment — we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by granting Hand a new trial. Moreover, since Hand filed his motion well within the prescribed "reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Janis, No. 74-958
...; Powell v. Zuckert, supra ; Iowa v. Union Asphalt & Roadoils, Inc., supra ; United States v. Blank, supra. See also Hand v. United States, 441 F.2d 529 (CA5 1971). 33 We express no view on the issue whether sentencing and parole revocation proceedings constitute "civil proceedings" for the......
-
Starns v. Avent
...a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Gulf Coast Fans v. Midwest Elec. Importers, 740 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir.1984); Hand v. United States, 441 F.2d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 1971). ...
-
U.S. v. O'Keefe
...that a motion for relief from a civil judgment under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the discretion of the court, e.g., Hand v. United States, 441 F.2d 529 (5th Cir.1971)(tax refund case); Simons v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir.1983); Clarke v. Burkle, 570 F.2d 824 (8th Cir.1978), and that eq......
-
Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
...in refusing to set aside its judgment, Villareal v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 545 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1977); Hand v. United States, 441 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1971), and that the record shows affirmatively that had the Brotherhood actually contested the claim, it "would have establishe......