Johnson v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 558
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Antonio Johnson, pro se, sued the United States challenging his 1988 Army discharge and seeking military disability retirement; complaint filed December 24, 2014.
- The government successfully moved to dismiss some claims on jurisdictional grounds in Johnson I; only the disability-retirement claim proceeded.
- The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record; the court granted the government's motion and dismissed Johnson's remaining claim with prejudice. Judgment entered March 10, 2016 (Johnson II).
- Johnson filed a motion labeled as Rule 59 reconsideration on May 5, 2016 (and separately sought leave to file under RCFC 60 and filed a notice of appeal May 6, 2016).
- The court treated the May 5 filing as a Rule 59 motion, found it untimely under RCFC 59(b)(1) (28-day deadline), and also rejected its merits as reargument and unsupported allegations of record fabrication.
- The court denied the Rule 59 motion but granted leave to file a Rule 60(b) motion if filed within a "reasonable time" (and within Rule 60 time limits for applicable grounds), advising prompt filing because an appeal was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 59 motion | Johnson asserted he had two years (citing RCFC 59(b)(2)) to seek reconsideration | Government relied on RCFC 59(b)(1): plaintiffs have 28 days after judgment to move for reconsideration | Motion untimely: filed May 5, 2016 more than 28 days after March 10 judgment; RCFC 6(b) prohibits extension |
| Merits / relief under Rule 60(b) leave to file | Johnson reasserted that Army records were fabricated and that reconsideration was warranted to prevent manifest injustice | Government maintained administrative record is presumptively regular and contains no evidence of deliberate falsification | Even if timely, Rule 59 motion would be denied on merits (reargument disallowed; no new law or evidence; no manifest injustice). Court granted leave to file a Rule 60(b) motion within a reasonable time |
Key Cases Cited
- Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (reconsideration under RCFC 59 is discretionary)
- Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 281 (1992) (standards for granting reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, or prevention of manifest injustice)
- Richey v. United States, 322 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (presumption of regularity for official military records)