United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
CHAKA FATTAH, JR.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE JUDGE
Chaka Fattah, Jr., in his pro se motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), claims that the
government knowingly used perjured testimony at the trial of
his civil case that resulted in a verdict in his favor.
Although he requests an opportunity to move for summary
judgment, we shall treat his request as one for a new trial
government responds that his motion is both untimely and
meritless. We agree. Therefore, we shall deny the motion.
brought this action alleging that Internal Revenue Service
and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents presented at his
residence without notifying his attorney in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 6304(a). He also claimed that the IRS, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice
unlawfully disclosed his tax return information to the media.
facts developed at trial established liability. In the
pre-dawn of February 29, 2012, when federal agents executed a
search warrant on Fattah's home, members of the press
were already there. Later that morning, federal agents
executed a search warrant at Shulick Law Office, where Fattah
had an office and worked, and at a school where he provided
to the execution of the warrants, an F.B.I. special agent had
wrongfully disclosed to a reporter when and where the search
warrants were to be executed. Acting on the wrongful
disclosure, members of the media were present when agents
served the warrants, resulting in numerous news articles
reporting the searches.
bench trial, we found that the defendant had violated 26
U.S.C. § 6103(a) when the government agent disclosed the
details about the pending service of the search warrants.
Finding that Fattah had not suffered any actual damages, we
awarded only statutory damages of $1, 000.00. Judgment was
entered on July 27, 2017.
almost two years later, Fattah filed his motion under Rule
60(b)(6). Fattah argues that a witness, his former employer
David Shulick, had lied in his deposition which was used at
Fattah's trial in this matter. Fattah testified that he
had been fired because the publicity surrounding the searches
negatively impacted Shulick's business. The
government's position was that Fattah had not been fired,
but had quit his job. Fattah now argues that Shulick's
testimony that Fattah had quit was used to refute his
contention that he had been fired from his job at
Shulick's business because of the publicity.
Findings of Fact, we found:
Although Shulick advised him that he was still employed at
Shulick Law Offices, Fattah did not return to work after the
searches. Findings of Fact (FOF) 13.
Shulick Law Offices did not fire Fattah as a result of media
coverage of the searches. FOF 14.
Fattah, without explanation, stopped showing up to work after
the search warrants were executed. FOF 15.
After the searches, Fattah quit his job with Shulick Law
Offices by not returning to work. FOF 16.
Prior to the searches, Fattah was planning to leave Shulick
Law Offices for new employment or to start his own ...