In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 21-2170C

(E-Filed: June 24, 2022)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

)

BENNY LEE WILLIS, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) Motion for Reconsideration; RCFC 

v. ) 59(a).

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

 Defendant. )

)

ORDER

On March 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s 

January 6, 2022 order dismissing this case. See ECF No. 10 (motion for

reconsideration); ECF No. 8 (January 6, 2022 order of dismissal). Pursuant to the court’s 

March 15, 2022 order, see ECF No. 12, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion 

on April 14, 2022, see ECF No. 13. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED.

I. Background

In his complaint, plaintiff focuses on decisions dismissing, and affirming the 

dismissal of, plaintiff’s previously filed complaint by the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit. See ECF No. 1 at 1. He claims the courts committed fraud by issuing 

decisions with “fabricated evidence,” including a “cancelled criminal arrest warrant,” 

and that in doing so, the courts violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 1-2; see

id. at 27-28 (claiming that the federal courts violated his rights under various 

amendments to the United States Constitution, including the right “to petition the 

Government for redress of grievances” under the First Amendment, the right to due 

process under the Fifth Amendment, and the right to be free from “cruel and unusual 

punishment,” the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, and the right to 
2

“equal protection” under the Fourteenth Amendment).

Plaintiff requested that this court exercise its “‘equity jurisdiction’” to 

adjudicate his claims, and demanded compensation in the amount of $36.5 million. 

See id. at 26 (asking the court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction), 27-28 (demanding 

$1.5 million in four paragraphs for a total of $6 million), 28 (demanding an additional 

$3.5 million in two paragraphs for a total of $7 million); 29 (demanding an additional 

$2.5 million in one paragraph and an additional $10.5 million in a second paragraph); 

30 (demanding an additional $3.5 in three paragraphs for a total of $10.5 million).

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s claims for three 

reasons: (1) “[f]irst, this court is not authorized to consider claims alleging the 

violation of constitutional rights that are not money-mandating,” and plaintiff did not 

allege the violation of any such rights, ECF No. 8 at 3; (2) “[t]o the extent that plaintiff 

means to allege claims against individual federal officials, this court likewise lacks 

jurisdiction,” id. at 4; and (3) “this court lacks jurisdiction to collaterally review the 

actions of federal district or appellate courts,” id. Therefore, the court dismissed the 

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 6.

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that order. See ECF No. 10.

II. Legal Standards

Rule 59(a) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 

governs motions for reconsideration, and provides that rehearing or reconsideration may 

be granted: 

(A) for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an 

action at law in federal court; (B) for any reason for which a rehearing has 

heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court; or (C) upon the 

showing of satisfactory evidence, cumulative or otherwise, that any fraud, 

wrong, or injustice has been done to the United States. 

RCFC 59(a)(1).

The court, “in its discretion, ‘may grant a motion for reconsideration when there 

has been an intervening change in the controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or a 

need to correct clear factual or legal error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Biery v. United 

States, 818 F.3d 704, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Young v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 

671, 674 (2010)). Motions for reconsideration must be supported “‘by a showing of 

extraordinary circumstances which justify relief.’” Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 

1226, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 

298, 300 (1999), aff’d, 250 F.3d 762 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Such a motion, however, “‘may 
3

not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could 

have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 

U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). In addition, “a motion for reconsideration is not 

intended . . . to give an ‘unhappy litigant an additional chance to sway’ the court.” 

Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 524, 525 (2006) (quoting Froudi v. United States,

22 Cl. Ct. 290, 300 (1991)). 

III. Analysis

In his motion, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s decision dismissing 

this case because:

justice require[]s that, the court reconsider if, rather or not, his complaint no. 

“21c2170” establishes the “preponderance of evidence” required to show, 

plaintiff’s entitlement to compensation from the federal Government for 

constitutional damages inflicted upon him by federal officials who, while 

acting their official capacity committed malfeasance, in case no., “12c1939” 

redressable by way of the court announcement made in “Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.”

ECF No. 10 at 2. Plaintiff contends that this court “share[s] concurrent jurisdiction with 

district courts around the United States” to resolve such claims. Id. In support of these 

arguments, plaintiff largely reiterates the claims he alleged in his complaint including 

allegations that he was the victim of fraud committed by government officials acting in 

their official capacity and that various of his constitutional rights were violated in the 

context of a separate court proceeding. See id. at 2-4; ECF No. 10-1 (Statement of 

Facts/Memorandum of Law filed in support of plaintiff’s motion).

It appears to the court that plaintiff has a fundamental—even if good-faith—

misunderstanding of this court’s jurisdiction. As the court explained in its order of 

dismissal, it simply does not have the authority to consider the claims alleged by plaintiff 

in his complaint. See ECF No. 8 at 3-4. The exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction is not 

discretionary. See RCFC 12(h)(3) (stating that “[i]f the court determines at any time that 

it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff presents no change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or 

legal or factual error that would justify reconsideration in this case. Biery, 818 F.3d at 

711. Nor has plaintiff alleged any circumstances that could fairly be understood as 

extraordinary. Caldwell, 391 F.3d at 1235. As such, plaintiff has failed to make a legally 

sufficient showing to justify reconsideration of this court’s January 6, 2022 order of 

dismissal, ECF No. 10.
4

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF 

No. 10, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Patricia E. Campbell-Smith

PATRICIA E. CAMPBELL-SMITH

Judge