# lln tbe 

# @nfte! 

# 9tutes 

# [,ourt of

# felersl @lsimg 

# (}R.N(}ENAI,

No. 15-292C 

### Filed: May 10, 2016
***rt

COREY LEA, 

# FILED

MAY

### | 0 2016

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### Plaintiff.

UNITED STATES, et al.,



### Defendants.l

Corey Lea, Hendersonville, TN, 

### re, Se plaintiff. 

### Jessica 

### L. Cole, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C.,

### for defendant. 

### With her were 

### Reginald

## T. Blades,

### Jr., Assistant Director, 

### Robert 

### E. Kirschman,

## Jr., Director, 

### Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### and Benjamin

### C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Washington, D.C.



## ORDER

HORN. J.

Pro se plaintiff, Corey Lea,filed 

### a motion 

### to reconsider this court's April 25, 2016 Order, which dismissed 

### plaintiffs complaint for lack of subject matterjurisdiction, for lack of standing, and on collateral estoppel grounds, pursuant 

### to RCFC 59(a) and RCFC 60. 

### See Lea

### v. United States, 2016 

### WL 1697941, 

### at 

### -11 (Fed. CI.

### April 25, 2016). 

### In his

1

### This court's Order 

### onApril 25, 2016 dismissed 

### all

### of plaintiff's claims against any defendant otherthan the United States because all claimsfiled inthe United States Court of Federal Claims must befiled against only the United States asthe defendant. See Rule 10(a) 

### of 

### the Rules 

### of 

### the United States Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims (RCFC) (2015). The United States Supreme Court has indicated, for suits

### filed in

### the United States Court

### of Federal Claims and its predecessors, "ifthe relief sought is against othersthan the United States the suit as tothem must be ignored as beyond thejurisdiction ofthe court." United 

### Statesv. Sherwood,312 

### U.S.584,588 (1941) (citation omitted); see also 

### Kurtv. United States, 103 Fed. Cl.

### 384,386 (2012); Stephenson v. United 

### States,58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003).somewhat confusing motion 

### for reconsideration, plaintiff appears to contend that he has



### standing, 

### asa

# re p litigant,

### to pursue

### this action 

### on behalf 

### of the now-dissolved corporation Corey Lea, Inc. because he is orwas an officer or director of

### the allegedly dissolved corporation.

### As this court explained in its

### April

### 25,2016 Order, however, Mr. Lea, an individual, cannot represent 

### the corporation Corey Lea, Inc. asan individual pro 

### se litigant, 

### even 

### if it is

### a dissolved entity. 

### See id. Moreover,

### to the extent 

### that plaintiff

moves 

### for reconsideration on

### the basis that Corey Lea, Inc. has standing 

### to pursue the claims Mr. Lea raised in his complaint, plaintiff's argument fails because Corey Lea, Inc. would have

### to be represented by counsel (see RCFC 83.1) andthe corporation was not
a party inthe case. Briefly 

### summarized and construed liberally, 

### as explained 

### in more detail in this court's April 

### 25,2016 Order dismissing 

### plaintiffs complaint in case number 15-292C, the 

### complaint 

### in

### the above-captioned 

### case appeared

### to allege 

### that, 

### in 2007, 

### the now

### dissolved company Corey 

### Lea, Inc. obtained 

### a loan

### from Farmers National Bank to purchase farm property.This loan was guaranteed by

### the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA)through 

### a loan guarantee agreement. As a result ofthe loan guarantee agreement, both Farmers National Bank and the USDA FSA held mortgages onthe farm property. In 2009, after foreclosure proceedings onthe property concluded, Farmers National Bank was granted aJudgment and Order of Sale
on 

### the property. Since 

### theforeclosure, plaintiff has initiated several actions across the 

### federaljudiciary system, including 

### the above-captioned case.2 

### Plaintiffs most recent

2

### As noted 

### inthis court's 

### April 25, 2016 Order, 

### Corey Lea 

### is a frequent 

### federal court litigant. In addition

### tothe above-captioned case,which 

### the court referred 

### to as Lea lV, plaintiff, Corey Lea, hasfiled at least eleven separate actions within the federal judiciary system based on 

### the same 

### set of

### facts, including: Lea

### v. United States, No. 3:16-CV00735 (M.D.Tenn.

### April 

### 13,2016) (ongoing); Lea

### v. Farmers Nat't Bank, No.3:1S-CV00595 (M. D.Tenn. May 27

,2015) (finding plaintiff's case "to be legally frivolous by reason of improper venue"); Lea v. United States, No. 14-44C, 

### 2014WL2101367 (Fed. Cl. May 

### 19,2014) (Lea l),

### affd in

### pe(, vacated in part,592 F.App'x 930 (Fed. Cir. 201a) 

### (!9a !!) 

### (voluntarily dismissed); 

### Lea

## v. United States, '120 

### Fed.

### Cl.440 (Lea 

### ilt) (granting defendant's motion 

### to dismiss); Lea

### v. United States, 

### No. 14-CV-00040-TBR (W.D. Ky. May 29, 2014) (dismissing plaintiff s complaint forviolation ofthe sanctions against him); Lea

### v. United States, 

### No. 13-CV-001 1O-JHM 

### (W.D.Ky.Feb.6,2014) (finding plaintiffs claims frivolous 

### and issuing sanctions enjoining plaintiff from filing related civil claims), aff'd, No. 14-5493 (6th Cir. Dec. 18,2014), cert. denied, Case No. 14-8315 (April 6,2015); 

### Lea

## v. United States, 

### No. 10-CV-00052-JHM 

### (W.D. Ky. 

### Jul. 11,2013) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss), 

### affd, No. 14-5445 (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014), cert. denied, Case No. 14-8315 (April 6, 2015); Lea

### v. United States, 1:11-CV-0009a-JHM (W.D. Ky. Aug. 26, 201 1) (transferred to Sixth Circuit at plaintiffs request); Lea v. United States, No. 10-CV-00029-JHM (W.D. Ky.

### Jan. 19,2011) (granting defendants' motion 

### to dismiss), 

### affd, No. 1't-5969 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2013); Lea v. Kentuckv, '1:09-CV-0056-TBR (W.D. Ky. April 20, 2010) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss); Leav. Farmers Nat'l Bank, 1:09- CV-00075-JHM-ERG (W.D. Ky.July 

### 21,2009) (granting defendants' motion

### to dismisscomplaint in

### this court, case number 15-292C, attempted

### to allege several breaches 

### of

contract, aswell astakings claims.

This court's April 25, 2016 Order dismissing plaintiffls complaint found that, with regard to plaintiff's claims based on alleged takings, tort, and implied-in-fact contract, his complaint was dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds because two otherjudges onthis 

### court had previously dismissed 

### those claims

### for lack 

### of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff had failed to curethe identifiedjurisdictional deficiencies inthe complaint filed as case number 15-292C assignedto the undersigned.3 See Lea

### v. United States, No. 14- 

### 44C, 2014

### WL 2101367 (dismissing 

### plaintiffs claims alleging tortious interference and fraud based on lack of subject matterjurisdiction); Lea

### v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. at 444-446 (dismissing plaintiff's claims alleging contractual 

### and regulatorytakings under 

### the Sth Amendment to

### the United States Constitution, due process violations under the 

### Sth 

### and 14th Amendments

## to the United 

### States Constitution, 

### unjust enrichment, conspiracy, 

### and implied-in-fact contract).

### With regard

### to plaintiffs remaining breach 

### of contract claims, this court found that "Mr. Lea, as a pro se plaintiff representing himself in his personal capacity, isthe wrong party to assertthose claims." See Leav. United States, 2016 

### WL 1697941

,at -1 1.The court explained:
[T]he bonower identified on the guaranteed loan agreement was Corey Lea, 

### Inc.,

### the corporate 

### entity, 

### and not Mr. Lea personally. Similarly, the mortgagor identified on 

### the second mortgage agreement was Corey Lea, Incorporated, and not Corey Lea.

td.
Moreover, the April 

### 25,2016 Orderfurther explained:



### Mr. Lea cannot pursue 

### these breach 

### of contract allegations 

### on behalf 

### of Corey Lea, Inc.

### without representation. According 

### to RCFC 83.1(a)(3) an "individual

### who is not 

### an attorney 

### may represent oneself 

### or

### a member of 

### one's immediate family, but may not represent 

### a corporation, an entity, or 

### any other person 

### in any other proceeding 

### before

### this court." RCFC 83.1(a)(3) (2015); see alsoTalasila. Inc.

### v. United

### States,240F.3d 1064, 

### 1066 (Fed. Cir.) ("[Plaintiffl must 

### be represented 

### by counsel 

### in order to pursue its claim against the United States inthe Court of Federal Claims."), reh'q and reh'o en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2001); Finast Metal 

### prods.. Inc. 

### v. United States, 12 Cl. 

### Ct.759,761 (1987) 

### ('lAl corporate'person'can no

andfindingthat pro se plaintiff

### corey Lea cannot pursue claim on behalf of corporation, Corey Lea, Inc.).
3The court's April 25, 2016 

### order recounted, in detail, the procedural history of plaintiffls two other, related actions atthe United states 

### court of Federal 

### claims and his aooeal to the United states 

### court ofAppeals for the Federal 

### circuit. see Leav. United states, 2016 

### WL 1697941

,at .3-5.more be represented in court by a 

### non-lawyer-even its own president and

sole

### shareholder-than can any individual."); Affourtit 

### v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl.

### 776,779 (2006) 

### ('A corporation appearing beforethe United States Court of Federal Claims

. . . must be represented by an attorney.") This rule applies 

### despite possible 

### financial hardship imposed 

### on 

### the plaintiff. See 

### Richdel, Inc.

### v. Sunspool

### Coro.,699 F.2d 1366, 1366 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1983) (holding that the plaintiff's "substantial financial hardship" did not waive the rule requiring corporations to be represented by counsel); Balbachv. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 681, 683 (2015) ("A pro se plaintiff cannot represent a corporation

. . .The Court cannot waive this rule, even for cases of severe financial hardship." (citingAffourtit v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. at 780)). In accordance with RCFC 83.1 (a)(3), plaintiff cannot represent the interests ot Corey Lea, Inc. before this court because he is not an attorney admitted to 

### the bar of

### this

### court. In his complaint and hissubsequent submissions to the court, plaintiff confuses and conflates himself and his company, Corey 

### Lea, 

## Inc. Plaintiff, Corey Lea 

### the individual, 

### and Corey 

### Lea, Inc., the corporate entity, however, are separate under the law. Plaintiff cannot cloak himself as Corey Lea, Inc. in order

### to assert 

### a claim 

### for damages against the United States. To the extent that Mr. Lea's complaint is aveiled attempt 

### to allow Corey Lea, 

### the individual, 

### to litigate

### on behalf 

### of Corey Lea, Inc., under RCFC 83.1 (aX3), absent a notice of appearance filed by an attorney admitted 

### to this court, plaintiffs complaint 

### must be 

### dismissed. Since no 

### such notice 

### of appearance 

### has beenfiled,

### this court cannot proceed to adjudicate 

### plaintiffs oro se contractual claims.a

td.

In plaintiff's motionfor reconsideration, Mr. Lea argues that this court improperly concluded 

### that plaintiff 

### did not have standing, and plaintiff asserts that "[t]he defendant did not raise the issue of a dissolved corporation having standing inthis court," as well as that "thissuit is merelywinding upthe affairs of adissolved corporation." Notwithstanding, 

### it remains

### the conclusion of

### this court

### that Corey Lea, 

### the individual, cannot litigate on behalf of

### the corporation Corey Lea, Inc. See RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Plaintiff has not raised any new issues for this court's consideration that would lead this court 

### to reconsider its dismissal of 

### plaintiffs complaint in itsApril

### 25,2016 Order.

Reconsideration 

### of ajudgment 

### 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 decisionwhether

### 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.), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 1990); see

4As noted inthe court's

### April25,2016 Order, plaintiff understands the difference between himself, Corey Lea, and Corey Lea, lnc. as he has previously also filed actions as Corey Lea, Inc. See, e.q., Lea et al.

### v. United States, No. 10-CV-00029-JHM (Mr. Leafiled as two separate plaintiffs: Corey Lea, Inc. and Corey Lea).

### also 

### Carterv. United 

### States,207 Ct.

### C|.316,318,518 F.2d 1199, 1199 (1975), cert.

denied, 

### 423 U.S. 1076, reh'q denied, 

### 424 

### U.5.950 (1976); Osaoe 

### Tribe

### of Indians

### of 

### Okla.,97 Fed. 

### C|.345,348 (2011)(discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b)); Oenqa v. United 

### States,97 Fed. 

### C|.80,83 (2011) (discussing RCFG 59(a));

### Websterv. 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. CI. 126, 129 (2009) (discussing RCFC 54(b) 

### and 59(a)); Banks

### v. United States, 

### 84 Fed. Cl. 288, 

### 29'l-92 (2008) (discussing RCFC 54(b) and 59(a)); Conioan 

### v. United States, 

### 70 Fed. Cl. 665, 667-68 (2006) (discussing RCFC59(a)); Tritek Techs., Inc.

### v. United

### States,63 Fed. 

### C\.740,752 (2005); Keeton Corr.. lnc.v. United States, 60 Fed. 

### C|.251,253 (2004) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Paalan 

### v. United 

### States,58 Fed. 

### Cl.99, 105 (2003), 

### affld, 120 F.

### App'x 817 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 8aa (2005); Citizens Fed. Bank. FSB v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 793, 794 (2002) (discussing RCFC 59(a)).

"Motions 

### for reconsideration 

### must be supported 

### 'by 

### a showing 

### of extraordinary circumstances whichjustify relief."' Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226,1235 (Fed. Ctr. 2004) (quoting Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States

,44 Fed. Cl.298, 300 (1999)), reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 

### 546 U.S. 826 (2005) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); 

### see also Fiskars. Inc.

### v. Hunt Mfo. 

### Co.,279 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Rule 60(b)(6) isavailable only in extraordinary circumstances and only when the basis for relief does not fallwithin any ofthe other subsections of Rule 60(b)." (citing Marquip, Inc.

### v. FosberAmerica, Inc., 198 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1999), reh'q denied (Fed. 

### Cir.2000)); ProvidentSav. 

### Bankv. Popovich, 

## Tl F.3d 

### 696,700 (7th Cir. 1995)); Oenoa 

### v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. at 83; Seldovia Native 

### Ass'n Inc.

### v. United States, 36 Fed. 

### Cl. 593, 

### 594 (1996), 

### affd, 144 F.3d 

### 769 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998) (discussing 

### RCFC 59(a)). Generally, "[t]he cases seem to make [a] faulVnofault distinction the controlling factor in determining whether extraordinary circumstances will befound or

### not. In avast majority of cases finding that extraordinary circumstances do exist so as tojustify relief, the movant 

### is completely 

### without

### fault...." 12Joseph

### T. Mclaughlin and Thomas 

### D. Rowe, Jr., Moore's Federal Practice S60.48[3][b] (3rd 

### ed. 2008) (discussing RCFC 60(b)(6)); see also Amadov. Microsoft Coro., 517 F.3d 1353, 1363 (Fed. Cir.2008) (citing pioneer lnv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993)) (discussing RCFC 60(bx6)).

Courts must address reconsideration motions

### with "exceptional 

### care." Carter v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. at 318, 518 F.2d 

### at 1199; see also Global Computer Enters. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl.466, 468 (2009) (discussing RCFC 

### 59(a)). .The three primary grounds thatjustify reconsideration are: '(1) an intervening change inthe conkolling law; (2) 

### the availability 

### of new evidence; 

### and (3) 

### the need

### to correct clear 

### erroror prevent manifest 

### injustice."' Delaware Vallev Floral Grp.. Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets. LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. 

### Cir.2010); see also Griffin

### v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. Ct. 

### 1,7 (2010), mot. to amend denied, appeal dismissed



### , 454 F

.App'x 899 (Fed. Cir. 201 1) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Totolo/Kinq Joint Venture 

### v. United States, 

### 89 Fed. Cl.

### 442, 444 (2009) (quoting Stockton E. Water Dist. 

### v. United States, 76 Fed. 

### Ct.497,499 (2007), 

### affd in 

### oart,vacated in

### pe{, rev'd 

### in part 

### on other qrounds,

### 583 F.3d 1344 

### (2005) (citation omitted) (discussing RCFC 59(a))) aopeal dismissed 

### ,431 F.App'x 895 (Fed. Cir.), reh,o denied (201 1) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Dairvland Power Coop.v. United States, 90 Fed.

### C|.615,652 (2009), recons. denied, 

### No.04-106C,2010WL637793 (Fed. Cl. 

### Feb.22,

2010),

### affd in pgg!, vacated in part on other orounds, 20'l 1WL 2519519 (Fed. Cir.June 

### 24, 2011) (discussing RCFC 

### 59(a)); Matthews

### v. United States, 

### 73 Fed. Cl. 524, 526 (2006) (citations omitted) (discussing RCFC 59); Prati

### v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 373, 376 (2008) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); TritekTechs.. lnc. 

### v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. at 752; Bannum. lnc.v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl.241 ,243 (2003) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Citizens Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl.

### at794; Strickland v. United States, 

### 36 Fed. 

### C|.651,657, recons. denied (1996) (discussing RCFC 59(a)); Bishop 

### v. United 

### States,26 Cl.

### Ct.281,286, recons. denied (1992) (discussing RUSCC

### 59). "Manifest,"


### as in "manifest injustice," 

### is defined 

### as "clearly apparent 

### or 

### obvious." Ammex. lnc. v. United

### States,52 Fed.

### C|.555,557 (2002),

### affd,384 F.3d 1368 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 948 (2005) (discussing RCFC 59). "Where a partyseeks reconsideration


### on 

### the ground

### of manifest injustice, 

### it cannot prevail unless 

### it demonstrates 

### that any injustice 

### is'apparent to the point of being almost 

### indisputable."' Griffin 

### v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. Cl.

### at7 (quoting Pac. Gas 

### & Elec. Co.

### v. United 

### States,74 Fed. 

### C1.779,785 (2006), 

### affd inpeg, rev'd in

### parton otherorounds,536 F.3d 

### 1282(Fed. 

### Cir.2008)). "A 

### court, therefore, 

### will not grant

## a motion 

### for reconsideration 

### if the movant 'merely reasserts...arguments previously made...all 

### of whichwere carefully considered 

### by the 

### court."' Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. at557 (quoting Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. 

### v. United

### States,29 Fed.

### Cl. 157, 164 (1993),

### affd,50 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o 

### denied,

### en banc suqqestion declined 

### (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)) (emphasis 

### in original); see also Griffin 

### v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. at

### 7; Bowlino 

### v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 551, 562, recons. denied (2010) (discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b));Webster v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl.

### at324 (discussing RCFC 59(a) and 60(b)); Pincknev v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 550, 555 (2009); Tritek Techs.. Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. a1752.

In sum, it is logical andwell establishedthat, "'[t]he litigation process rests onthe assumptionthat both parties present their case once, to their best 

### advantage;'a motion 

### for reconsideration thus should not be based on evidence that 

### was readily available at the time the motion was 

### heard." Seldovia Native

### Ass'n Inc. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 

### at 594 (quoting Aerolease Lonq Beach 

### v. United States, 31 Fed. 

### Cl.342,376, affd, 39 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 

### (table)). "Post-opinion motions to reconsider are notfavored, 

### especially 'where

### a party has had

### afair opportunity to... 

### litigate

### the point 

### in issue."' Aerolease Lonq Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. at376 (quoting Prestex. lnc. v. United 

### States,4 Cl.

### Ct.317,318, 

### affd,746F.2d 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States, 189 Ct.Cl. 116, 117-18,416 F.2d 1320, 1321 (1969))) (omission inoriginal; other citation omitted).

Not only does Mr. Lea's motion 

### to reconsider fail 

### to raise any new issues, but, it demonstrates 

### his refusal

### to understand 

### the rules

### on legal representation 

### of corporate entities clearly 

### setforth 

### in RCFC 83.1



### . Plaintiff's argument 

### does not even address the 

### clear prohibition 

### in RCFC 

### 83.1 directing 

### that pro 

### se individuals 

### "may not represent a corporation, 

### an entity, 

### or any other person 

### in any other proceeding before 

### this court." 

### RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Further, 

### to the extent

### that plaintiff argues

### that 

### the allegedly nowdissolved corporation Corey Lea, Inc. has standing to pursue its claims against the United States inthis court, Mr. Lea fails to distinguish that Corey Lea, Inc. is not a plaintiff inthe

### above-captioned

### case. Indeed, 

### intheApril 

### 25, 2016 Order, 

### this court specifically

indicated:

Even ifthere could be any viable claims against defendant based on thefacts in plaintiff's complaint, which this court does not reach or conclude, Mr. Lea, as a pro


### se plaintiff representing 

### himself 

### in his personal 

### capacity, isthe wrong party to assert 

### those

### claims.... Instead, 

### Corey Lea, Inc.,

### which isthe named entity on 

### both

### the loan guarantee agreement between 

### the USDA 

### and Farmers National Bank andthe second mortgage agreement, isthe only entity that may be eligible 

### to allege contractual claims against defendant based 

### onthird party beneficiary status.

See Lea v. United States, 2016

### WL 1697941

,

### at.11.
Additionally, notwithstanding 

### plaintiffs attempt in his motion for reconsideration to 

### reargue 

### his motion

### for summary 

### judgment, because

### the courtfound

### that 

## it lacked jurisdictionto consider plaintiff's claims, the court deemed that motion moot in itsApril 25, 2016 Order. See id., at *12; see also Boothv. United States, 990 F.2d 

### 617,620 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Estes Express Lines 

### v. United

### States,l23Fed. Cl. 538, 550 (2015) (dismissing parties' cross motions for summary judgment as moot because the court did not possess jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claim).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and because plaintiff has failed to raise any new issues that wouldwarrant reconsideration ofthis court's April 25,2016 Order, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MARIAN 

### BLANK HORN 

### Judge