LITTLE COYOTE v. USA, No. 1:2015cv00723 - Document 21 (Fed. Cl. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan G. Braden. (dw) Copy to parties.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LITTLE COYOTE v. USA Doc. 21 0R!$H$lAl, lln t\e Wnite\ btutes @ourt of ;felerst No. l5-723 C, l5-799 C Filed: June 6,2016 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ,|( ******** *! * * * * * * * *,k * * * * * * * {< *** tr :} FILED * * * *,* * * {. * MONTE LITTLE COYOTE & MARK WAYNE BALLARD @tsfms JUN - 6 2016 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Plaintiffs, pro se, THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. **t *,t {.,***rf :t<*t rr****rr.r.{<**rf,tt * * )* * * + * * * )* * + )t t MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION On April 26, 2016, Plaintiffs Monte Little Coyote and Mark Wayne Ballard filed a Motion For Reconsideration Pursuant To Rule 59(b) OfThe Rules OfThe United States Court OfFederal Claims ("RCFC") And/Or Motion Under RCFC 60; And/Or Motion To Stay And Relief Under All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. g 1651 relating to the March 16, 2016 Unreported Memorandum Opinion And Final Order. ECF No. 17. To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under RCFC 59, the movant must identifr a manifest enor of law, or mistake of fact. See Shapiro v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 353, 361 (2012),alf'd,503 F. App'x 952(Fed. Cir.2013). Specifically, the movantmust show: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability ofpreviously unavailable evidence; or (3) the necessity of granting the motion to prevent manifest injustice. 1d The court has considerable discretion in ruling on a motion for reconsideration. See Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. UnitedStates,904F,2d1577,1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990). But, granting such relief requires ,,a showing of extraordinary circumstances." caldwell v. united stotes, 391 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2004) cert. denied,546 U.S. 826 (2005) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs in their April 26,2016 Motion For Reconsideration do not argue that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, nor do they argue that there is an availability of previously unavailable evidence, nor have they demonstrated that denying the April 26,2016 Motions For Reconsideration would result in manifest injustice. Dockets.Justia.com In the March 16,2016 Memorandum opinion And Final order, the court granted the Govemment's Motion To Dismiss, because it determined that the court did not have iurisdiction to_adjudicate the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' July 13,2015 complaint. ECF No. 15. in the April 26,2016 Motion For Reconsideration, however, plaintiffs have not shown that the court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged in plaintiffs' July 13, 2016 complaint nor that denying the 4pr1126,2016 Motion For Reconsideration would manifest injustice. Instead, Plaintiffs reargue the merits ofthe underlying case. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' April26,2016 Motion For Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
