Hill v. United States

Federal Claims

Hill v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 467, 12 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1279, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 9, 2006 WL 148888

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedJanuary 19, 2006

DocketNo. 05-1130C

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 Fed. Cl. 467 (Hill v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 467, 12 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1279, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 9, 2006 WL 148888 (uscfc 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER.

WHEELER, Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs January 11, 2006 Motion for Reconsid[468]*468eration of the Court’s Opinion and Order dated December 29, 2005. That Order dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint on jurisdictional grounds, and declined to transfer the case to a United States District Court. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider that decision and “move forward with this case.” As Plaintiff recognizes, however, the Court possesses wide discretion in deciding whether to grant such a motion. Furthermore, motions for reconsideration under RCFC 59 will only succeed in a narrow set of circumstances. Specifically:

A motion under [RCFC] 59 must be based upon manifest error of law, or mistake of fact, and is not intended to give an unhappy litigant an additional chance to sway the court. [Plaintiff] must show either [1] that an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, [2] evidence not previously available has become available, or [3] that the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Litigants should not, on a motion for reconsideration, be permitted to attempt an extensive retrial based on evidence which was manifestly available at [the] time of the hearing. The litigation process rests on the assumption that both parties present their case once, to their best advantage.

Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 281, 286 (1992) (citations omitted). In this case, Plaintiffs motion is not supported by an intervening change in controlling law. Nor has Plaintiff pointed to any newly-available evidence in this case. Finally, the Court is unconvinced that granting reconsideration would prevent a manifest injustice. As discussed in the Court’s December 29, 2005 Order, Plaintiff was aware of the availability of non-judicial review of adverse personnel actions through his former employer, but appears to have abandoned that path.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER.

WHEELER, Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs January 11, 2006 Motion for Reconsid[468]*468eration of the Court’s Opinion and Order dated December 29, 2005. That Order dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint on jurisdictional grounds, and declined to transfer the case to a United States District Court. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider that decision and “move forward with this case.” As Plaintiff recognizes, however, the Court possesses wide discretion in deciding whether to grant such a motion. Furthermore, motions for reconsideration under RCFC 59 will only succeed in a narrow set of circumstances. Specifically:

A motion under [RCFC] 59 must be based upon manifest error of law, or mistake of fact, and is not intended to give an unhappy litigant an additional chance to sway the court. [Plaintiff] must show either [1] that an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, [2] evidence not previously available has become available, or [3] that the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Litigants should not, on a motion for reconsideration, be permitted to attempt an extensive retrial based on evidence which was manifestly available at [the] time of the hearing. The litigation process rests on the assumption that both parties present their case once, to their best advantage.

Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 281, 286 (1992) (citations omitted). In this case, Plaintiffs motion is not supported by an intervening change in controlling law. Nor has Plaintiff pointed to any newly-available evidence in this case. Finally, the Court is unconvinced that granting reconsideration would prevent a manifest injustice. As discussed in the Court’s December 29, 2005 Order, Plaintiff was aware of the availability of non-judicial review of adverse personnel actions through his former employer, but appears to have abandoned that path.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Fed. Cl. 467, 12 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1279, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 9, 2006 WL 148888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-united-states-uscfc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack