tll:llGiN£ll..
In the United States Court ot Federal Claims
No. 17~1163€
Filed: May 24, 2013 F l L E D
****sa*#***#****$***$**$*********s****** MAY 24 ANB
=l¢
. . COURT OF
: FLL;_DSERAL cl_AlMs
NATHANIEL ERSKINE ROLLE, *
=i=
Plaintiff, pro se, * Rules of the United States Court of
* Federal Clairns lS(a)(Z)
V- * (Amendments Before Trial); 59
* (Motion For Reconsideration).
THE UNITED STATES, *
$
Det`endant. *
*
*
=i=
*************s**#***********************
Nathaniel Erskine Rolle, Folkston, Georgia, Plaintiff, pro se.
Geoffrey Martin Long, United States Depal'tment of Justice, Civil Division, Washingtcn, D.C.,
Counsel for the Government.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER `
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
BRADEN, Chief.]udge.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND.
On August 28, 2017, Nathaniel Rolle (“Plaintift”) filed a Complaint (“Compl.”), captioned
“Petition for a Writ I-Iabeas Corpus,” in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that:
(l) the United States Coast Guard (the “Coast Guard”) lacked jurisdiction to detain him, because
he was detained and apprehended in Bahamian waters, in violation of the United States
Constitution and a treaty between the United States and the Commonwealth of the Baharnas;
(2) the Coast Guard violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to
advise Plaintiff of his Mfranda" rights before and immediately after apprehension; (3) the Coast
' Miranda v. United States, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (holding that both inculpatory and
exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be
admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant Was informed of the right to
Guard violated Plaintiff’ s constitutional rights by failing to contact the Bahamian government, “as
to {the] abduction of a Baharnian [c]itizen;” and (4) Plaintiff is a Bahamian citizen Who has been
deprived of the rights and liberty owed him by the Baharnian government Cornpl. at 6-8. The
August 28, 2017 Complaint also requested relief in the form of “immediate release from
confinement by the United States.” Compl. at 8.
On March l2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a l\/iotion For Production Of Docurnents. On that same
day, Plaintiff also filed a Motion To Appoint Counsel. On March 26, 2018, the Government filed
a Response to the l\/larch l2, 2018 l\/lotion F or Production Of Documents.
On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second Motion For Appointrnent Of Counsel.
On January 5, 20l8, the court issued a l\/Iernorandum Opinion And Final Order that
dismissed the August 28, 2017 Complaint, because the court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate
the claims alleged therein. See Rolle v. Ur)l`ted States, 136 Fed. Ci. 140, 146 (Fed. Cl. 2018).
On January 25, 2018, the court received a “Petition Relying On Affidavits And l\/Iotion To
Alter Or Aniend The .Tanuary 5th, 2018 Judgment Based On Correcting A Manifest Error Of Law
And F acts Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(0) & (e).” Attached thereto Were: (l) a Request For Ternporary
Relief On Bond; (2) a proposed Order To Show Cause For A Preliminary Injunction And
Ternporary Relief On Bond; and (3) a Petition For Claims For Damage, lnjury, Or Death seeking
$20 million in damages, pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (2012).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
The court may reconsider and alter or amend its judgment, if the movant can show that:
(l) there has been an intervening change in controlling laW; (2) previously unavailable evidence is
now available', or (3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice See Rule of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 59(a)(l); see also Dair'yland Power Co~op v. United
States, 106 Fed. Cl. 102, 104 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (“Reconsideration is not to be construed as an
opportunity to relitigate issues already decided Rather, the moving party must demonstrate either
an intervening change in controlling laW, previously unavailable evidence, or a manifest error of
law or mistake of fact.” (citation omitted)). A motion for reconsideration requires “a showing of
extraordinary circumstances.” Caldwell v. Um'ted Smres, 391 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citation omitted), cert denied, 546 U.S. 826 (2005). l\/Ioreover, it is not intended to give an
“unhappy litigant an additional chance to sway” the court. See Matthews v. Unz'led Smtes, 73 Fed.
Cl. 524, 526 (Fed. Cl. 2006). Nor may a party prevail by raising an issue for the first time on
reconsideration, When it Was ripe for adjudication at the time the complaint Was filed. ]d.
III. DISCUSSION.
ln this case, Plaintiff has not established that reconsideration of the court’s January 5, 2018
Memorandum Opinion And Final Order dismissing this case on jurisdictional grounds is
Warranted. Plaintiff raises the same alleged bases for jurisdiction as alleged in the August 28, 2017
Complaint and the same objections raised in response to the Govemment’s Motion To Disrniss.
consult With an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination
before police questioning).
For example, Plaintiff again relies on alleged violations of a “maritime contractual agreement”
between the United States and Bahamian governments as evidence that the United States violated
the terms of that agreement Pl. Mot. at 3-8. The January 5, 2018 Mernorandum Opinion And
Final Order determined, however, that agreement did not establish the United States Court of
F ederal Claims’ jurisdiction See Rolle, 136 Fed. Cl. at 146. Plaintiff also continues to insist that
the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pl. Mot. at 142, 9410. But, as the January 5, 2018 Memorandurn Opinion
And Final Order explained, it does not. See Rolle, 136 Fed. Cl. at 145 (“[T]he United States Court
of Federal Clairns is not empowered to grant a writ of habeas corpus, and any petition for the same
exceeds the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”).
'l` he January 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion And Final Order also explained that a
precondition for Tucl