Court Opinion

ID: 9351818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 21:05:37.985943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:20.335679
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   No. 22-225C
                             (Filed: January 3, 2023)
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***************************************
FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,                  *
                                      *
                  Plaintiff,          *
                                      *
v.                                    *
                                      *
THE UNITED STATES,                    *
                                      *
                  Defendant.          *
                                      *
***************************************
                                      ORDER

       This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction on
November 30, 2022, and entered judgment the next day. See Order (ECF 22);
Judgment (ECF 23). On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a document
captioned as a motion to stay the case or, in the alternative, to vacate the Court’s
dismissal order and set a schedule for Plaintiff to amend his complaint. The document
shall be FILED by my leave and deemed served on the Defendant as of this date.
        Plaintiff requests that the motion be filed under seal because it references
medical information. Leave to file under seal is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED
to file a redacted version that obscures the nature of Plaintiff’s claimed diagnosis in
Exhibit A no later than February 2, 2023. If Plaintiff fails to provide a redacted
version complying precisely with this Order, the motion shall be unsealed.
      The motion claims, in essence, that Plaintiff wishes to provide additional
information establishing this Court’s jurisdiction over his claims, but that he will be
too unwell to do so for some time. He relies primarily on California state court rules
and decisions that he says require extensions of time because of medical need. Those
authorities do not govern in this Court. Plaintiff also argues that the Eighth
Amendment of the Constitution requires an extension of time, but the Constitution’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual criminal punishment has no evident
application to procedure in a civil case.
       His motion could be construed as a post-judgment motion under RCFC 59 or
RCFC 60. Plaintiff, however, has failed to provide any explanation of how he could
amend his complaint to cure its jurisdictional defects, or what information might be
forthcoming. If he had information establishing jurisdiction, he had the opportunity
to present it in his original complaint, in his opposition to the government’s motion
to dismiss, or in a motion to amend his complaint before this Court entered judgment.
To the extent Plaintiff claims that his medical condition prevents him from providing
additional material now, Plaintiff fails to provide actual evidence of his condition,
only hearsay. See RCFC 59(c) (“When a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration
is based on affidavits, they must be filed with the motion.”). At any rate, if Plaintiff
is capable of preparing the motion, he is presumably capable of previewing what else
he would like to say.
    In the absence of any justification for relief from the judgment, the motion is
DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                               s/ Stephen S. Schwartz
                                               STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
                                               Judge

                                         -2-