OR|G|NAL
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 15-1071C
Fi|ed: February 5, 2016
HARRY NiE, : F"_ED
P|aintiff "
’ § " 5
16
V_ *
U.S. CO
* FEDERAj_l§,_TAf:/":S
UN|TED STATES, *
Defendant. *
'k * * ~k * * 'k ~k * ~k * 'k * * *
Harry Nie, Mitchells, VA, ;BY.
A|bert S. |arossi, Trial Attorney, Commercia| Litigation Branch, Civi| Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendant. With her were
Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Benjamin C. Mizer, Principa| Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Commercia| Litigation Branch, Civi| Division, Washington, D.C.
ORDER
HORN, J.
Fo||owing the court’s November 30, 2015 Order granting defendant’s motion to
dismiss prg § plaintiff Harry Nie’s comp|aint, on January11, 2016, plaintiff filed a "motion
to object" to the court's decision to grant defendant’s motion and to grant the motion
before plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to the motion.‘
1 ln his motion to object, plaintiff cites to Ru|e 46 of the Rules of the United States Court
of Federal Claims (RCFC) (2015), which states in fu||:
A formal exception to a ruling or order is unnecessary. When the ruling or
order is requested or made, a party need only state the action that it wants
the court to take or objects to, along with the grounds for the request or
objection. Failing to object does not prejudice a party who had no
opportunity to do so when the ruling or order was made.
As noted in the court’s November 30, 2015 Order, plaintiff filed suit in this court
"seeking $95,000 each year in compensation damages for unjust loss of plaintiff-property
rights to continued employment with General Dynamics Amphibious System, since
government willfully violating due process of law in plaintiff legal case in violation of the
Fifth Amendment, the amount accumulates starting since 2009 till plaintiff' rights will be
restored," as well as "$300,000 each year in punitive damages for unjust loss of liberty
without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the amount accumulates
starting since 2009 till plaintiff rights will be restored." Nie v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl.
334, 336 (2015). Plaintiff also alleged that the "Government committed ‘breach of
contract’ with tortious, intentional or egregious misconduct of defendant." l_gL Plaintiff’s
motion to object quotes verbatim pages from plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff also quotes
the preamble to the United States Constitution, as well as the Gettysburg Address.
Reconsideration of a judgment is not intended to permit a party to retry its case
when it previously was afforded a full and fair opportunity to do so. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated that: "The decision whether to grant
reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the [trial] court." _Yuba Natural Res.
lnc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir.), Lh’g denied (Fed. Cir. 1990); §
_al_g; Carter v. United States-,_-_ 207 Ct. Cl. 316, 318, 518 F.2d 1199, 1199 (1975), ce_rt.
denied, 423 U.S. 1076, Lh’g denied, 424 U.S. 950 (1976); Osage Tribe of indians of
Okla., 97 Fed. Cl. 345, 348 (2011) (discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b))§ Oenga v. United
States, 97 Fed. Cl. 80, 83 (2011) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Webster v. United States, 92
Fed. Cl. 321, 324, recons. denied, 93 Fed. Cl. 676 (2010) (discussing RCFC 60(b))§ Alpha
l L.P. ex rel. Sands v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 126, 129 (2009) (discussing RCFC 54(b)
and 59(a)); Banks v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 288, 291-92 (2008) (discussing RCFC
54(b) and 59(a)); Corrigan v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 665, 667-68 (2006) (discussing
RCFC 59(a)); Tritek Techs. lnc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 740, 752 (2005); Keeton
Corr.-,. lnc. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 251, 253 (2004) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Paalan
v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 99, 105 (2003), affj, 120 F. App’x 817 (Fed. Cir.), ge_rt.
denied, 546 U.S. 844 (2005); Citizens Fed. Bank FSB v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 793,
794 (2002) (discussing RCFC 59(a)).
"Moti0ns for reconsideration must be supported ‘by a showing of extraordinary
circumstances which justify relief."’ Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed.
As plaintiff’s case has been dismissed, and because plaintiff is proceeding L Y, the
court treats plaintiff’s motion to object as a motion for reconsideration. _§=e=e Haines v_._
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (requiring that allegations contained in a § g complaint
be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), Lh’g
denied, 405 U.S. 948 (1972); se_e § Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980); Harris v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 290, 292
(2013) ("Although plaintiff’s pleadings are held to a less stringent standard, such leniency
‘with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional
requirements."’ (quoting Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007)).
Cir. 2004) (quoting Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. C|. 298, 300 (1999)),
re_h’g g g denied (Fed. Cir.), Lt. denied, 546 U.S. 826 (2005) (discussing RCFC
59(a)); § @._Eisl