,F\ r'



# FILED JAN

# r 1

## l0ii U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### MELZA E.

### JORDAN, SR.,



### THE 

### LINITED STATES, 

# llr tbt 

# @nitp! $ltutts @ourt of

# fe[trsl @lsimg
No. l5-1175C (Filed: January

### 3l, 2017) NOT FOR 

### PUBLICATION

**,1 * * * * * * +* * +* * {,* *, :t* * ,1*,k{.*t 

### *,**,t**tr***

# * Pro Se 

### Plaintiff, Motion for Reconsideration

De

# t-endant. * * )t {. + +* * * 1.* * *.,1.* * * **,i * * * * * * * * :1.* * {.*t,l * {.+ 

### Melza E. Jordan. Sr..

### Joliet. 

### Illinois. pqq!s. Courtney 

### D. Enlow, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant. 

### OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge On 

### Augusl 25,2016, the court granted del'endant's 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction pursuant

### to Rule 

### l2(b)(l) ofthe Rules 

### of the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### ("RCFC"). Jordan v. 

### United States, 128 Fed. 

### C\.46 (201'6). On September 

### 30'2016, plaintiff moved 

### lor relief from a

### judgment or order pursuant

### to RCFC 

### 60(b)(6) and on 

### November 22,2016, the court denied

### plaintiff s

### motion. Cunently before the 

### court is 

### plaintifls December 9, 2016 

### motion for reconsideration 

### ofthe court's November 

### 22,2016 decision.
In 

### his September 30, 2016 

### motion, 

### plaintitisought to have the court 

### "modify the decision set

### forth in its 

### Opinion and Order or

### August 25,2016 by addressing the sought after alternative remedy 

### of remanding this matterto the appropriate 

### u.s. District." Mot. for 

### Relief

# l. In denying the requested 

### reliel, the court concluded, 

### in its November 

### 22,2016 Opinion and Order, that 

### plaintilf had 

### failed 

### "to identify the exceptional circumstances necessary to

### justily such extraordinary 

### reliel," and that 

### "although 

### plaintiff claimed 

### in his amended 

### complaint that he

### did not seek a

### review ofJudge Kendall's decision, that is exactly what he

### sought." 

## op.&order2. Although 

### difficult to parse, 

### plaintiff s

### cunent motion appears 

### to seek the exact same 

### relief:



### Now comes the Self-Represented 

### Plaintiff, Melza E. Jordan, Sr', 

### ("Jordan") and submit this 

### motion for reconsideration 

### of the entered 

### opinion and order 

### ofNovember 22,2016, seeking 

### to have 

### this Court 

### to rescind the entered 

### opinion and order 

### ofNovember 22,2016, and seeks 

### to have this Court 

### to incorporate an analysis and discussion about the alternative 

### relief sought 

### of

## action- 

# ?0lq 1,a00 

## 0000 8053 Lqeatransfer the case

### to the appropriate 

### district court 

### for 

### adjudicationinto the entered 

### opinion and order 

### ofAugust 25, 2016. 

### Mot. for Recons. 1. Because 

### plaintiff continues 

### to seek 

### reliefthat this court lacks

### thejurisdiction to grant 

### (review ofJudge Kendall's decision) and because 

### plaintiff continues 

### to seek 

### reliefthat 

### plaintiff has at

### all times beenfree to pursue 

### without a

### ruling by this 

### court (review ofJudge 

### Kendall's decision by the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Seventh 

### Circuit), 

### plaintiff s

### efforts have risen

### tothe level 

### offrivolous 

### litigation. See 

### Hemphill v. 

### Kimberly-Clark Com., 374 Fed. 

### Appx. 41, 45 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2010) 

### (affirming the 

### district court's finding that 

### plaintilf sactionswere harassing and 

### frivolous, based 

### "both on the number 

### ofher filings and

### their lack 

### of 

### merit"); Fullard v. 

### United States, 78 Fed. 

### Cl. 294, 302 (2007) 

### ("Plaintiff s repeated attempts

### to prosecute 

### civil rights claims against private parties and state 

### officials, which this court already determined are not

### within its

### jurisdiction to decide, 

### exemplifies frivolous 

### litigation."); Chandler 

### v. United states,

## 3l Fed.

## cl. 106, I

### l0-l 

## I (1994) 

### (finding frivolous litigation where 

### plaintiff continually disregarded the 

### holding 

### ofthe courl ofFederal claims and other courts and 

### "continue[d] to prosecute his meritless claims 

### with abusive 

### zeal"). Accordingly, 

### plaintiff s

### motion is 

### DENIED. In addition, 

### plaintiff is 

### ENJOINED from submitting further documents to the court regarding the above-captioned case. The 

### Clerk shall not accept any

### further

### filings from 

### plaintiff without first consulting 

### with the undersigned. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

-2-