KIMBRELL v. USA

Filing 23

ORDER denying 4 Motion to set aside judgment for fraud on the court ; denying 6 Motion for Alternative Dispute Resolution ; granting 7 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 9 Motion to leave and Motion under Rule 60 to set aside a judgment ; denying 10 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 12 Motion to set aside a manufactured mortgage ; denying 15 Motion for leave under Rule 60 to set aside manufactured notes ; granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer,; denying as moot 19 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 20 Motion for Default Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to StayDefendant's amended motion to dismiss this case due on or by Wednesday, July 26, 2017; Response to second and third motions to amend the complaint due Wednesday, July 26, 2017 Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski. (vds) Copy to parties.

Jfn tbe Wniteb fbtates QCourt of jfeberal (!Claims
No. 17-495C
(Filed June 28, 2017)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

************************

JODY D. KIMBRELL,
Plaintiff,
V.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

*
*

*
*
*
*
*

FILED
JUN 2 8 2017
U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

*
*
*
*

************************

ORDER
The government has moved for a stay of briefing regarding the various
motions that have been filed by the plaintiff in this case, pending the outcome of its
motion to dismiss this matter. This request has been necessitated by the delayed
appearance of government counsel in the matter, as well as the fact that plaintiff,
representing herself, has filed a large number of motions --- several of which appear
to be procedurally inappropriate. The government's motion has prompted the Court
to review plaintiff's various motions. As explained below, most of those motions do
not require a government response. Accordin gly, the government's motion to stay
t he response deadlines, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED-IN-PART AND DENIED-IN-

PART.
Plaintiff's first motion, filed on April 7, 2017, requests that this Court set
aside the judgment of another court, ostensibly under Rule 60(d)(3) of the Rules of
the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff
misunderstands this rule, no doubt because she is proceeding without counsel.
Under RCFC 60, our court may set aside one of its prior judgments, not those of
other courts. Haddad v. United States, Nos. 15-640C & 15-820C, 2015 WL 7730933,
at *2 n.6 (citing Carney v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 160, 162-64 (1972)). This
motion is accordingly DENIED. For the same reasons, plaintiff's motions filed on
April 24, 2017, May 10, 2017, and May 24, 2017 (ECF Nos. 9, 12, 15) are also

DENIED, as RCFC 60 does not empower this Court to provide the relief plaintiff
requests.
Plaintiff has also moved to correct the memorandum she filed in support of
her April 7, 2017 motion. ECF No. 10. Because the April 7, 2017 motion has been
denied, her motion to correct the memorandum is DENIED as moot. Similarly,
plaintiff has moved to correct her May 24, 2017 motion, ECF No. 19, which for the
same reason is DENIED as moot.
In her second motion, plaintiff requests that this matter be referred for
Alternative Dispute Resolution. ECF. No. 6. Such requests must be made by both
sides to a dispute. See App. H to RCFC, '\[ 3. In light of the government's motion to
dismiss this case, plaintiff's motion is DENIED as premature.
Plaintiff has not responded to the government's motion for an extension of
the time period in which to respond to plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 18, which the
Court hereby GRANTS. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for default judgment, ECF
No. 20, is DENIED, as the government's response was filed within the deadline.
The Court notes that the seventh document, plaintiff's first motion to
amend the complaint, was filed just seventeen days after the complaint, and
therefore plaintiff was entitled to that amendment as a matter of course pursuant
to RCFC 15(a)(l)(A). Thus, although it is unnecessary, the Court hereby GRANTS
that motion for the record.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the original complaint without
considering the motions to amend the complaint filed on April 24, 2017, May 10,
2017, and May 24, 2017. In light of the first amendment, allowed by our rules as a
matter of course, the Court will allow the defendant to file an amended motion to
dismiss this case within 28 days of the date of this order, on or by Wednesday,
July 26, 2017.
The Court also believes it appropriate for the government to file a response to
plaintiff's second and third motions to amend the complaint. The defendant may
incorporate those responses into the amended motion to dismiss or may file them
separately on or by Wednesday, July 26, 2017.
Plaintiff need not file a response to the motion to dismiss the case, but should
wait to respond to the defendant's amended motion to dismiss. The response shall
be filed within 31 days of the date of service, pursuant to RCFC 7.2(b)(l) and RCFC
6(d).

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

-3-