NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-5055 

LAWRENCE V. WILDER, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Lawrence V. Wilder, Sr., of Catonsville, Maryland, pro se. 

Joseph A. Pixley, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With him on 

the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, 

and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Nancy B. Firestone 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-5055 

LAWRENCE V. WILDER, SR., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-CV-723, Judge Nancy B. 

Firestone. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: September 10, 2009 

 __________________________ 

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Petitioner Lawrence V. Wilder, Sr., appeals the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’ decision to deny the requested relief from judgment and case reassignment. 

Because the Court of Federal Claims properly denied Mr. Wilder’s motion, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

From 1987 until 1997, Mr. Wilder worked as a Health Insurance Specialist at the 

Department of Health and Human Services. On October 12, 2007, Mr. Wilder filed a 

complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging in part “that he was wrongfully 

removed by the government because the government acted unreasonably in effecting 

his removal and because the plaintiff suffered from a disability stemming from a work-
related injury at the time of his removal.” Wilder v. United States, No. 07-CV-723, 2007 

WL 5173633, at *1 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2007). The court dismissed his complaint, holding that 

it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Wilder failed to “identify a specific 

money-mandating statute upon which to base a claim for damages,” or to “specify any 

specific monetary damages that he s[ought].” See Wilder, 2007 WL 5173633, at *2. 

We affirmed for different reasons—specifically, we held that based on the six year 

statute of limitations described in 28 U.S.C. § 2501, Mr. Wilder’s claims “would be 

barred . . . even if jurisdiction were otherwise proper.” Wilder v. United States, 277 F. 

App’x 999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

On September 9, 2008, Mr. Wilder filed his first motion under Court of Federal 

Claims Rule 60 (“RCFC 60”), which provides for relief from a judgment or order under 

certain circumstances. RCFC 60(a) provides “relief from minor clerical mistakes or 

errors arising from simple oversight or omission,” Patton v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & 

Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1021, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and RCFC 60(b) provides that 

[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence that, 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 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 that justifies relief. 

In his first RCFC 60 motion, Mr. Wilder appeared to make two arguments: first, 

that the Court of Federal Claims “refused to help [him] to investigate and discover [his] 

2009-5055 2
claims,” and second, that his removal action was “not legal due to the fact that [his] 

representation was ineffective, the Government provided incorrect information, [he] was 

suffering from [his] psychiatric disability, and the Government practiced trickery against 

a mentally injured employee.” Mr. Wilder therefore requested that the statute of 

limitations period be equitably tolled, that the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for lack 

of jurisdiction be reversed, and that Mr. Wilder be provided court-appointed counsel. 

The court denied Mr. Wilder’s motion, noting that Mr. Wilder did not allege that any 

clerical mistake under RCFC 60(a) had been made, nor had he “set forth any evidence 

of mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason justifying relief from 

the judgment dismissing his complaint” as required under RCFC 60(b). Wilder v. United 

States, No. 07-CV-723 (Ct. Fed. Cl. Oct. 16, 2008). Mr. Wilder did not file a notice of 

appeal. 

On February 4, 2009, Mr. Wilder filed a second motion requesting relief under 

RCFC 60 and asking that his case be reassigned to a new judge. Mr. Wilder stated that 

he had newly discovered evidence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act 

(“FOIA”) request and that the Department of Justice had committed fraud, “including 

assault and cruel and inhuman punishment.” He charged the court with failing to 

determine the equitable tolling date relevant to his case, and requested that the Court of 

Federal Claims judge “recuse herself because of bias,” arguing that the judge had used 

“information external to the case,” such as Supreme Court decisions, “to prejudice 

appellant.” 

That same day, the court denied the motion in its entirety. Wilder v. United 

States, No. 07-CV-723 (Ct. Fed. Cl. Feb. 4, 2009). The court pointed out that reliance 

2009-5055 3
upon Supreme Court precedent is proper, and that Mr. Wilder failed to demonstrate that 

the judge acted with bias or prejudice. Just as before, the court denied the RCFC 60 

portion of the motion because Mr. Wilder did not allege any clerical mistake or any other 

“mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason justifying relief from the 

judgment.” The court noted that although Mr. Wilder mentioned certain FOIA 

responses, those did “not provide a basis for amending the order dismissing this case.” 

Mr. Wilder now appeals. 

DISCUSSION 

We review a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims on a RCFC 60 motion for an 

abuse of discretion. Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 288 F.3d 1371, 1376 

(Fed. Cir. 2002); Matos by Rivera v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 

1549, 1551–52 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “An abuse of discretion exists when, inter alia, the 

lower court’s decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or on a clearly 

erroneous finding of fact.” Id. at 1552 (quoting Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc. v. 

Craftmaster Furniture Corp., 12 F.3d 1080, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). 

On appeal to this court, Mr. Wilder does not appear to have limited his challenge 

to the denial of his latest RCFC 60 motion and request for recusal. Mr. Wilder 

repeatedly references the merits of his underlying case, and among other relief he 

requests an injunction to “order cooperation by defendants to stop the delays and abuse 

of a psychiatric disabled appellant,” and asks for “[c]riminal prosecution of all those 

responsible of crimes against the disabled and vulnerable adults.” He also alleges that 

the Court of Federal Claims erred by failing to apply the Rehabilitation Act, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, appropriate Supreme Court precedent, and the 

2009-5055 4
Constitution. However, “[i]n considering an RCFC 60(b) motion, we cannot review the 

original judgment.” Browder v. Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). Thus, 

to the extent that Mr. Wilder is challenging either the Court of Federal Claims’ decision 

dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or this court’s affirmance 

based on the fact that the statute of limitations ran on his claims, we cannot and do not 

reach those issues in this appeal. Likewise, we cannot reach the underlying merits of 

Mr. Wilder’s claims against the government. 

To the extent that Mr. Wilder is appealing the RCFC 60 ruling and the ruling on 

his request for recusal, we affirm. As to Mr. Wilder’s request that the Court of Federal 

Claims judge recuse herself, Mr. Wilder did not point to any example of bias or 

prejudice—he simply made a conclusory statement that the judge used “information 

external to the case to prejudice appellant” without making it clear what that information 

was or why it prejudiced his case. Although the Court of Federal Claims dismissed his 

complaint and denied his motions, the Supreme Court has stated that “judicial rulings 

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Mr. Wilder’s conclusory statements are simply 

an insufficient basis upon which to require a judge to recuse herself. See Charron v. 

United States, 200 F.3d 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

In addition, as noted the Court of Federal Claims’ RCFC 60 decision is reviewed 

for an abuse of discretion. Mr. Wilder has not persuaded us that the court abused that 

discretion in denying him the requested relief from judgment. Just as the Court of 

Federal Claims stated twice in addressing Mr. Wilder’s RCFC 60 motions, such relief 

can only be granted in very specific situations—namely, where there has been a “minor 

2009-5055 5
2009-5055 6

clerical mistake[] or error[] arising from simple oversight or omission,” see Patton, 25 

F.3d at 1029, or where there has been a “mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or 

any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.” Mr. Wilder’s blanket statement to 

the effect that the Department of Justice committed “fraud,” without alleging any 

supporting facts, does not meet that standard. The same is true with respect to his 

claim to have uncovered newly discovered evidence through a FOIA request. Merely 

alleging that there is “newly discovered evidence,” without specifying what that evidence 

is, why it could not have been obtained earlier, or how it might affect the judgment, 

cannot provide a basis for relief. As a result, the Court of Federal Claims was correct in 

denying Mr. Wilder’s motion in its entirety. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rulings of the Court of Federal 

Claims. 

COSTS 

Each party to bear its own costs.