JORDAN v. USA, No. 1:2015cv01175 - Document 27 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration; and ENJOINING plaintiff from submitting further documents to the court regarding this case. The Clerk shall not accept any further filings from plaintiff without first consulting with the judge. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (dls) Copy to parties. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7014 1200 0000 9093 6422)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
JORDAN v. USA Doc. 27 ,F\ r' llr tbt @nitp! $ltutts @ourt of fe[trsl @lsimg No. l5-1175C (Filed: January 3l, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION **,1 * * * * * * + * * + * * {, * *, :t * * ,1 *,k{.*t * JAN r 1 l0ii U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS *,**,t**tr*** MELZA E. JORDAN, SR., FILED Pro Se Plaintiff, Motion for Reconsideration THE LINITED STATES, t-endant. De * )t {. + + * * * 1. * * *.,1. * * * * *,i * * * * * * * * :1. ** {. * * t,l * {. + Melza E. Jordan. Sr.. Joliet. Illinois. pqq!s. Courtney D. Enlow, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge On Augusl 25,2016, the court granted del'endant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule l2(b)(l) ofthe Rules of the United States Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC"). Jordan v. United States, 128 Fed. C\.46 (201'6). On September 30'2016, plaintiff moved lor relief from a judgment or order pursuant to RCFC 60(b)(6) and on November 22,2016, the court denied plaintiff s motion. Cunently before the court is plaintifls December 9, 2016 motion for reconsideration ofthe court's November 22,2016 decision. In his September 30, 2016 motion, plaintitisought to have the court "modify the decision set forth in its Opinion and Order or August 25,2016 by addressing the sought after alternative In denying remedy of remanding this matter to the appropriate u.s. District." Mot. for Relief the requested reliel, the court concluded, in its November 22,2016 Opinion and Order, that plaintilf had failed "to identify the exceptional circumstances necessary to justily such extraordinary reliel," and that "although plaintiff claimed in his amended complaint that he did not seek a review ofJudge Kendall's decision, that is exactly what he sought." op.&order2. Although difficult to parse, plaintiff s cunent motion appears to seek the exact same relief: l. Now comes the Self-Represented Plaintiff, Melza E. Jordan, Sr', ("Jordan") and submit this motion for reconsideration of the entered opinion and order ofNovember 22,2016, seeking to have this Court to rescind the entered opinion and order ofNovember 22,2016, and seeks to have this Court to incorporate an analysis and discussion about the alternative relief sought of action- ?0lq 1,a00 0000 8053 Lqea Dockets.Justia.com transfer the case to the appropriate district court for adjudicationinto the entered opinion and order ofAugust 25, 2016. Mot. for Recons. 1. Because plaintiff continues to seek reliefthat this court lacks thejurisdiction to grant (review ofJudge Kendall's decision) and because plaintiff continues to seek reliefthat plaintiff has at all times been free to pursue without a ruling by this court (review ofJudge Kendall's decision by the United States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit), plaintiff s efforts have risen to the level of frivolous litigation. See Hemphill v. Kimberly-Clark Com., 374 Fed. Appx. 41, 45 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming the district court's finding that plaintilf s actions were harassing and frivolous, based "both on the number ofher filings and their lack of merit"); Fullard v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 294, 302 (2007) ("Plaintiff s repeated attempts to prosecute civil rights claims against private parties and state officials, which this court already determined are not within its jurisdiction to decide, exemplifies frivolous litigation."); Chandler v. United states, 3l Fed. cl. 106, I l0-l I (1994) (finding frivolous litigation where plaintiff continually disregarded the holding ofthe courl ofFederal claims and other courts and "continue[d] to prosecute his meritless claims with abusive zeal"). Accordingly, plaintiff s motion is DENIED. In addition, plaintiff is ENJOINED from submitting further documents to the court regarding the above-captioned case. The Clerk shall not accept any further filings from plaintiff without first consulting with the undersigned. IT IS SO ORDERED. -2-
]]>
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.
