# r'ntbt@n*,!

# g,lQll$Ah,,rrut @tsims
No. 15-586C 

### (Filed: 

### April28,2016)

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, APR 2

# I 20t6 U,S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Pro Se; 

### Denial of 

### Motion for Relief; RCFC

### 5a(b);RCFC 60(b) 

### Pro Se

### Plaintiff,

THE 

### UNITED STATES,

Defendant.



### ORDER 

### DENYING 

### MOTION FOR 

### RELIEF UNDER RULES 54

### AND 60 Pending beforethe court is pro se

### plaintiff Keith Judd's 

### motion for relief, pursuant to 

### Rule 54(b) and Rule 60(b) 

### of the Rules

### of the Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### ("RCFC"), from this 

### court's October 

### 30,2015 order and

### judgment dismissing 

### plaintiff scase

### for lack

### of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a

### complaint in this court on June 9,2015 challenging the $200 

### felony assessment fee and $20,000 

### fine hewas required to pay

### following his 1999 

### conviction for mailing threatening communications in

### violation

### of 18 U.S.C. $

### 876. See Juddv. 

### United States, 

### No. 15-586, 2015

### WL 6684540, at

## *l (Fed. 

### Cl. Oct. 

### 30,2015) (citing United States

### v.

### Judd,252F.3d 435 (5th 

### Cir.

### 2001)). This court granted the 

### govemment's motionto dismiss

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction on the grounds that 

### plaintiff s 

### complaint amounted 

### to an impermissible challengeto his 

### conviction andsentence. 

### Id. at * 1-2 

### (citing Smith v. 

### United States, 36 F.

### App'x 444,446 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002); Beadles v. 

### United States, 115 Fed. 

### Cl.242,245 (2014)). 

### Plaintiff filed an appeal on 

### November 16,2015 (Fed. 

### Cir. Case 

### No. 2016-1212) and, on 

### March 30,2016, the U.S. 

### Court of Appeals 

### for the Federal 

### Circuit summarily affirmed this 

### courl's dismissal. See Docket 

### No. 19. In addition, on November 

### 24,2015, 

### plaintiff filed in this court a

### motion to alter or amend the order 

### of dismissal pursuant 

### to RCFC

### 59. On November 

### 25.2015. the court denied 

### olaintiff s

### motion to alter or amend. See Docket 

### No. 18.
In the pending 

### motion for relief, 

### plaintiff argues, as he

### did in his unsuccessful 

### motion to alter or amend, that the court erred 

### by

### failing to

### view his 

### complaint as an 

### "illegal exaction" claim,which this court

### would have

### jurisdiction to 

### review under the 

# FILEDTucker 

### Act, 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1a9l(a). See. e.g., Norman 

### v. United States, 429 

### F.3d 1081'

1095 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2005). Plaintiff refers to statements he made 

### in his response to the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss alleging that the govemment breached a

### pretrial diversion agreement and 

### illegally took funds

### from his prison 

### account.r 

### Plaintiff further alleges, again, that the 

### indictment in his 

### criminal case was 

### invalid. Plaintiff argues that the 

### court's order and

### judgment did not resolve his entire case or should be revised 

### in 

### light of these claims.
As the court explained 

### in its decision to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint and 

### in its denial 

### ofhis motionto alter or amend the order and

### judgment, this court expressly considered 

### plaintiffs illegal exaction claims and found, 

### "notwithstanding any

### jurisdiction this court may have over claims 

### for illegal exaction, 

### this 

### court'lacksjurisdiction to consider claims 

### which amount 

### to collateral attacks on 

### criminal 

### convictions'"' Judd, 2015 

### WL 6684540, at *

## I (citing Beadles, 115 Fed. 

### Cl. 

### at245). Plaintiff "cannot 

### collaterally attack his

### conviction and sentence in this 

### court." ld. at

### *2 (citing Smith

### v. United States, 

### 36F.App'x444,446(Fed.Cir.2002). Onappeal,theFederalCircuitagreedwiththis court'sview that 

### plaintiff s

### "illegal exaction 

### claim was 

### simply a pretext 

### for reviewing his 

### criminal case." Docket 

### No. 19 at

### 3. The Federal 

### Circuit also found that this court did 

### not en by dismissing 

### plaintiff s case based on 

### "[t]he most salient

### jurisdictional problem," rather than determining whether 

### plaintiff had 

### identified a money-mandating source 

### of law under Fisher

### v. United States 

### , 402 F.3d 116'7

### ,

## ll73 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant 

### part). Id. at4 

### RCFC 54(b) provides in relevant partthat: 

### [A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than 

### all the claims or the rights and 

### liabilities of fewer than 

### all the parties does not end the action asto any 

### of the claims or parties and may be revised at any

### time before the entry 

### of a

### judgment adjudicating 

### allthe claims and 

### all the 

### parties' rights and 

### liabilities.
RCFC 60(b) provides that:
On 

### motion and

### just terms, the court may 

### relieve a

### party or 

### its legal representative

### from afinal 

### judgment, order, or proceeding 

### for the

### following
reasons: 

### (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 

### or excusable neglect; 

### (2) newly discovered evidencethat, 

### with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move 

### for a new 

### trial under 

### RCFC 59(b); 

### (3) fraud (whether 

### previously called 

### intrinsic or 

### extrinsic), misrepresentation, 

### or misconduct 

### by an opposing party; (4) the

### judgment is

### void; (5) the

t Plaintiff cites in support of his claims Judd v. United States, 189 F.

### App'x 951,952 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, in that case, the Federal Circuit specifically found that "[t]he Diversion Agreement

. . . is not a contract within the scope

### ofthe Tucker Act, andthe Court ofFederal Claims lacks subiect matter 

### iurisdiction." Id.

### judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; 

### it is based on an

earlier 

### judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

### applying 

### it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 

### (6) any other reason

### thatjustifies relief.
Becausethe 

### court's decision dismissed 

### plaintiffs entire case, and 

### not only some 

### of his claims, 

### RCFC 54(b) is not applicable. 

### Plaintiff sclaim that he is entitled to 

### relief under RCFC 60(b) is also

### without 

### merit. Plaintiff argues that this court ened 

### in its interpretation 

### of the issues presented 

### in his complaint, 

### which could be construed as a

### claim 

### of 'Judicial error" that 

### would be grounds

### for 

### relief under RCFC 

### 60(bX1). SeeWagstaff 

### v. United States, 595 F.

### App'x 975,977 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) 

### (citing Patton 

### v. Sec'y 

### of 

### Dep't of Health 

### & Human Servs., 25 

### F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed.

### Cir. 199a)). The court also considers whether any other reason 

### justifies relief under RCFC 

### 60(bX6). It is

### well-settled that 

### relief from

### judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedythat is granted 

### only in exceptional circumstances. 

### Kine v. United States, 

### No. 12-175C,

### 2016WL762114, at

### *3 (Fed. Cl. 

### Feb.26,2016) (citing Madison Servs.. 

### Inc.v. 

### United States,94Fed. Cl. 501, 506-507 

### (2010)). Plaintiff provides no evidence 

### ofjudicial error in the 

### court's dismissal

## of plaintiff scase 

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. The Federal 

### Circuit agreed 

### with this 

### court's reasoning and 

### summarily affirmed the 

### dismissal. Moreover, asthis court noted 

### in its denial of 

### plaintiff s

### motion to alter 

### or amend the order

### of dismissal pursuant to RCFC 59, 

### plaintiff does not argue that any intervening change in the 

### controlling law has occurred 

### or that 

### previously unavailable evidence is 

### now available. 

### In such circumstances, 

### plaintiff has

### filed to establish any basis 

### for 

### relief from the 

### court's order and

### judgment under RCFC 60(b). 

### Accordingly, 

### plaintiff s

### motion for 

### relief is 

### DENIED. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

Senior Judge