In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 13-112C

(Filed: March 18, 2013)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RALPH TAYLOR,

Pro Se Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 

MOTION TO AMEND

Pending before the court is pro se plaintiff Mr. Ralph Taylor’s motion for 

reconsideration and motion to amend his pleadings. The court DENIES Mr. Taylor’s

motions.

Mr. Taylor moves for reconsideration of this court’s decision dismissing his case

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Rules 59(a) and 

60(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) set forth the applicable 

standards for reconsideration and relief from final judgments or orders. To be entitled to 

reconsideration under RCFC 59(a), Mr. Taylor “must do more than merely reassert[] 

arguments which were previously made and carefully considered by the court.” Bannum, 

Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 241, 243 (2003). Rather, Mr. Taylor must show “(1) the 

occurrence of an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of 

previously unavailable evidence; or (3) the necessity of allowing the motion to prevent 

manifest injustice.” Osage Tribe of Indians of Okla. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 345, 

348 (2011). RCFC 60(b) further provides that relief from a final judgment, order or 

proceeding may be granted for several enumerated reasons, such as mistake or fraud, as 

well as “any other reason that justifies relief.” 

In addition, Mr. Taylor’s post-judgment motion to amend his complaint and for 

reconsideration may be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile. See Stueve 
2

Bros. Farms, LLC v. U.S., 107 Fed. Cl. 469, 476 (2012) (discussing various standards for 

a post-judgment motion to amend). A motion to amend may be found futile if the 

proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro S.A. de C.V., 464 F.3d 1339, 

1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

In his motion, Mr. Taylor states that he mistakenly named a federal official as the 

defendant to his breach of contract claim, rather than the United States. Mr. Taylor seeks 

to amend his complaint to include the United States as the proper defendant, and for 

reconsideration of his breach claim. The court previously dismissed Mr. Taylor’s case 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Taylor’s complaint alleged a claim 

against an individual federal official rather than the United States. Taylor v. United 

States, No. 13-112C, 2013 WL 638885, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 19, 2013).

However, the court also held that even if Mr. Taylor’s complaint had properly 

alleged a non-frivolous contract with the United States rather than an individual federal 

official, Mr. Taylor could not allege the necessary facts to support his breach of contract 

claim. Id. at *2-3. The court sua sponte dismissed Mr. Taylor’s claim for failure to state 

claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. at *3. Therefore, as this court’s prior 

opinion makes clear, even if Mr. Taylor were to amend his complaint to properly include 

the United States as a defendant, such an amendment has already been considered by the 

court, and would be futile. Kemin Foods, 464 F.3d at 1354-55 (“When a party faces the 

possibility of being denied leave to amend on the ground of futility, that party must 

demonstrate that its pleading states a claim on which relief could be granted, and it must 

proffer sufficient facts supporting the amended pleading that the claim could survive a 

dispositive pretrial motion.”); Bannum, 59 Fed. Cl. at 243 (to be entitled to 

reconsideration, a party must do more than reassert arguments that “were previously 

made and were carefully considered by the court”). Moreover, to the extent Mr. Taylor is 

generally alleging a breach of fiduciary duty against the United States, such a claim is 

classified as a tort, and beyond the scope of this court’s jurisdiction. Newby v. United 

States, 57 Fed. Cl. 283, 294 (2003).

Mr. Taylor provides no other grounds for relief under RCFC 59(a) or 60(b). For 

these reasons, Mr. Taylor’s motion for reconsideration and motion to amend his 

complaint are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Nancy B. Firestone

NANCY B. FIRESTONE

Judge