0R!$H$lAl,
lln t\e Wnite\ btutes @ourt of ;felerst @tsfms
No. l5-723 C, l5-799 C
Filed: June 6,2016
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
FILED
,|( ******** *! * * * * * * * *,k * * * * * * * {< *** tr :} * * * *,* * * {.
* JUN - 6 2016
U.S. COURT OF
MONTE LITTLE COYOTE & FEDERAL CLAIMS
MARK WAYNE BALLARD
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.
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.