United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS [ECF Nos. 18,
Jennifer A . Dorsey, United States District Judge
Internal Revenue Service garnished plaintiff Cheryl
Fealy's social security checks because she didn't pay
her taxes. Feely brought this action to stop the garnishment
on the basis that-because she is not a federal employee-she
is immune from having to pay taxes. In a prior order, I
dismissed Fealy's complaint with prejudice because she
both failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and, even
if she had not, her allegations did not give rise to a
plausible claim. Since that order, Fealy continues to
zealously advocate on her own behalf-filing three motions
asking that I set aside my prior decision.
motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason
why the court should reconsider its prior decision” by
presenting “facts or law of a strongly convincing
nature.” Reconsideration is appropriate if the
court “is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law.”“A motion for reconsideration is
not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments
upon which the court has already ruled.”
sympathetic to the challenges that Fealy faces in
representing herself, but her latest motions rehash the same
arguments that she made before. She contends that she exhausted
her administrative remedies because she made “efforts .
. . to resolve the issue” with the IRS. To be clear: I do
not doubt that she made some effort to resolve this case with
the IRS. But as I explained before, that is not legally
enough. To exhaust an agency's administrative remedies, a
party must not merely make some effort to resolve the
issue-she must follow that agency's procedures in doing
The IRS's procedures are laid out in 26 C.F.R. §
301.7433. Fealy has never alleged facts showing that she
properly complied with these requirements and thus
properly exhausted her remedies with the
agency. Navigating an agency's administrative
process can be daunting, but that does not excuse Fealy's
failure to comply with the IRS's requirements.
even if Fealy had exhausted her remedies, I still must
dismiss her case (and thus deny her newest round of motions).
Above all, Fealy's claims are predicated on the theory
that only employees of “Government regulated
Compan[ies]” can be taxed. But she provides no cases or
statutes supporting her theory, and that is because there are
none. Indeed, courts have sanctioned plaintiffs with heavy
monetary fines for maintaining frivolous arguments that they
are immune from taxes.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Fealy's
motions for reconsideration, to set aside, and for
preliminary injunction [ECF Nos. 18, 19, 24] are DENIED.
is cautioned that any motions asking for further relief in
this case will be summarily denied.
 I find this motion suitable for
disposition without oral argument. Nev. L.R. 78-1.
 Frasure v. United States, 256
F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).
 Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1244, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Brown v. Kinross Gold,
U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. ...