Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Garland E. Williams, Petitioner v. United States

Case: 24-2356

Document: 20

Page: 1

Filed: 03/20/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

tBrnteb States (Court of Sppeate

tor ttje jfeberal (Circuit

GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2024-2356

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:24-cv-00511-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.

ON MOTION

Before DYK, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

ORDER

Garland E. Williams moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal from the judgment of the United

States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint

for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 6. We construe his motion

and his opening brief as a challenge to the Court of Federal

Claims’s certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any

APPX-A-1

Case: 24-2356

Document: 20

Page: 2

Filed: 03/20/2025

WILLIAMS v. US

such appeal would not be taken in good faith. We conclude

that the appeal is frivolous and therefore dismiss, bee 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing for dismissal at any time

upon determination that an appeal is frivolous).

After several unsuccessful attempts to challenge state

child support orders in federal district court, Mr. Williams

filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims in 2021 challeng­

ing the garnishment of his federal tax refunds to pay those

orders. In January 2023, this court affirmed the dismissal

of that complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Williams v.

United States, No. 2022-1712, 2023 WL 193163 (Fed. Cir.

Jan. 17, 2023). Undaunted, Mr. Williams filed this com­

plaint in April 2024, again challenging the garnishment of

years of his tax refunds and arguing that his taxpayer’s re­

turn information had been improperly disclosed. The

Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for want

of jurisdiction on July 26, 2024, and certified that an appeal

by Mr. Williams would not be brought in good faith.

We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. This court previ­

ously made clear to Mr. Williams that 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g)

barred the Court of Federal Claims from hearing any ac­

tion to restrain or review the Department of the Treasury s

offset of his tax refunds to enforce a state child support or­

der or bring an action in that court against the state. None­

theless, Mr. Williams again raises the issue before us,

without making any cogent argument why a different out­

come is warranted here. The Court of Federal Claims was

also clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over any

claim of unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information

because jurisdiction over such claims lies exclusively in fed­

eral district court under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a). See Taylor v.

United States, 616 F. App’x 423, 425 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Be­

cause Mr. Williams’s arguments do not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss under § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Accordingly,

APPX-A-2

Case: 24-2356

Document: 20

Page: 3

Filed: 03/20/2025

3

WILLIAMS V. US

It Is Ordered That:

(1) ECF No. 6 is denied, and the appeal is dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

For the Court

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

March 20, 2025

Date

APPX-A-3

Case: 24-2356

Document: 21

Page: 1

Filed: 05/12/2025

©ntteU States (Court of Appeals

tor tlje jfeberal (Circuit

GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appel lee

2024-2356

Appeal froth the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:24-cv-00511-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.

MANDATE

In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered

March 20, 2025, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is

hereby issued.

FOR THE COURT

Mav 12, 2025

Date

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

APPX-B-4

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 19 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 5

Jn the tHmteb States Court of jfeberal Claims

GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

No. 24-511

Filed: July 26, 2024

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Garland E. Williams, pro se, for Plaintiff.

Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Commercial

Litigation Branch, Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.

Opinion and Order

HADJI, Judge.

In his latest effort to avoid paying any court-ordered child support, Plaintiff Garland

E. Williams, pro se, filed a complaint before this Court alleging that the Department of the

Treasury withheld portions of his tax refund payments in violation of his Fifth Amendment

protection against unlawful takings and improperly disclosed his personal information in

connection with the enforcement of his Kansas state child support obligations. Compl. at

35-39,56-63, ECF 1.1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(IFP) (ECF 2) and the Government’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. (Def.’s Mot., ECF

8). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion for Summary

Dismissal (ECF 8) and DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(ECF 2).

Background

In a failed effort to avoid making partial contributions to his court-ordered child

support obligations spanning nearly a decade, Plaintiff has brought several claims in this

1 ECF 1 includes two separately paginated documents. “Compl.” refers to the document entitled

“Complaint,” which starts on page 7 of ECF 1.

APPX-C-5

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 19 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 5

Court and various United States district courts challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s

(IRS) statutorily authorized garnishments of his tax refunds.

For example, in 2015, Plaintiff brought a complaint in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that child support orders from e

States of Kansas and Louisiana were “fraudulent and

Williams v. Kan. State Dep’t ofSoc. & Rehab. 5erv.,No. 14-CV-01663,2015 WL 1272783

at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 19, 2015). The district court dismissed the complaint fading 1hat

none of the entities Plaintiff named in his lawsuit could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Id. at *3-5.

Subsequently, in 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana related to the enforcement of his child support orders,

complaining about the actions of, among others: Don Johnson, former Secretary of e

Kansas Department of Social Rehabilitation Services; Lori L. Yockers, a Kansas hearing

officer; and Rebecca S. Kennedy, a Louisiana hearing officer. See Williams v.

ofJust., No. 16-38, 2016 WL 1039560, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2016), R. &R. adopted

No. 16-38, 2016 WL 1031289 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2016). In his Report and

Recommendation, the United States Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff argued (once

again) that the enforcement of child support orders in Kansas and Louisiana were

fraudulent and violated his constitutional rights, and then recommended that the court

dismiss the action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). M at * 1-2. See

also Williamsv. U.S. Dep'tofJust.,No. 1-.15CV-111-GNS, 2016 U.S Dist LEXIS 50656

at *2-6 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016) (dismissing Plaintiffs claim related to the enforcement

of his child support orders because there was “simply no reason for Plaintiff to have filed

this case in Kentucky” and finding that transfer of the case would not be in the interest of

justice because of the number of related claims Plaintiff had previously filed).

Most recently, and most relevant to this matter, in 2023, the Federal Circuit upheld

this Court’s finding that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims relating to

Plaintiffs tax refund garnishment under 26 U.S.C. § 6402 because these offsets were used

to pay a debt Plaintiff owed to a Kansas state agency. Williams v. United States, No. 20221712 2023 WL 193163, at *2 (Fed. Cir. 2023 Jan. 17, 2023). Nevertheless, Plaintiff has

filed yet another case challenging the IRS’ garnishment of his tax refunds to satisfy his

child support debts.

In the instant case, Plaintiff raises three principal claims relating to the offset of his

tax refunds and the disclosure of his personal information in connection with the

enforcement of his Kansas state child support obligations. First, Plaintiff challenges the

Treasury’s offsets of his tax refunds to pay debts Plaintiff owed to Kansas Child Support

Services; these debts arose from Plaintiffs failure to pay child support and occurred in

2001, 2007, 2009-2010, 2013, and 2015-2018. Compl. at 13-27, 52. Second, Plaintiff

alleges that these offsets amounted to a Fifth Amendment taking. Compl. at 35-39. Last y,

Plaintiff alleges that, in the process of withholding his tax refunds, the Treasury illegally

disclosed Plaintiffs personal information to Kansas Child Support Services. Compl. at 52,

2

APPX-C-6

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 19 Filed 07/26/24 Page 3 of 5

56-63. Plaintiff seeks millions in compensatory damages, interest, and punitive damages.

Compl. at 70-75.

Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed IFP. ECF 2.

The Government opposes Plaintiffs IFP request because of Plaintiffs “extensive^history

of frivolous litigation” and moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e). Def.’sMot. at 1,6.

Discussion

This Court, like all federal courts, is a court of limited jurisdiction; its jurisdiction

is generally defined by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. See Southfork Sys.. Inc. y UnMd

States 141 F 3d 1124,1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Tucker Act “gives the court authority to

render judgment on certain monetary claims against the United States?

v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. V«l(aXl)). The

Tucker Act itself however, “does not create a substantive cause of action. Fisher v. United

Ser 4^2 F 3d 1167,1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Instead, “a plaintiff must identify a separate

Xce of substantive law that creates the right to money damages? Id “[T]he absence of

a money-mandating source [is] fatal to the court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Id.

at 1173.

If the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the

action. Court of Federal Claims Rule 12(h)(3); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Envt, 523

US 83 94 (1998). Although pro se litigants are generally held to a lower standard in

pleading and proving the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction, see Hughes vJlowe, 449

US 5 9 (1980), they nonetheless “bear[] the burden of establishing subject matter

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch.

Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). When considering a motion to dismiss tor lack

of subiect-matter jurisdiction brought pursuant to Court of Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(1),

“a court must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and

draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United

States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs claim regarding the offsets of his tax

refunds under 26 U.S.C. § 6402. See Compl. at 43-45. Plaintiff alleges that the Treasury

improperly remitted proceeds from his tax refunds to Kansas Child Support Services.

Compl. at 13-27. As the Federal Circuit has already held in a previous action brought by

Plaintiff under 26 U.S.C. § 6402, the Secretary of the Treasury must “reduce a person’s tax

refund by ‘the amount of any past-due support’ and remit that amount to the state

Williams v. United States, No. 2022-1712, 2023 WL 193163, at »1 (Fed. C m Jan 17,

2023). Subsection (g), however, prohibits this Court “from hearing [Plaintiffs] claim

’ Court of Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(1) is the same as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure !2(bXD. Compare

RCFC 12(b)(1) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(bXD-

3

APPX-C-7

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 19 Filed 07/26/24 Page 4 of 5

against the Department of the Treasury to recover the amount deducted.” Id at «2. As the

Federal Circuit reasoned:

Subsection (g) only allows a taxpayer to bring action against

the Federal agency or state claiming the debt. Here, [Plainittt]

alleged that the entity claiming his debt was the State of

Kansas, not the Department of the Treasury. Thus, [Plaintiff]

would need to bring action against the state of Kansas and [this

Court] lacks jurisdiction over state actors.

Id. Because 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g) only allows Plaintiff to bring a claim against the agency

claiming his debt (i.e., the State of Kansas), this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear

Plaintiff’s claims regarding the offsets of his tax refunds.

Furthermore, with respect to his tax refund offsets Plaintiff alleges that he was; not

afforded the process due to him under 26 U.S.C. § 664(a). See Compl. a 36-38. This Court

however, has addressed Plaintiffs argument on this ground in previous litigation and found

that 26 U.S.C. § 664(a) is not money mandating and “governs state actlon’ ove^

this Court does not have jurisdiction. Williams v. United States, No. 21 -cv-1632,2022

. 838301, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 21,2022). Therefore, this Court does not ^ve junsdicfton to

hear Plaintiffs claims alleging a violation of due process under 26 U.S.C. § 664(a). See la.

Similarly, Plaintiff argues that he was denied due process under the Fifth

Amendment. Compl. at 35-36. However, the Fifth Amendment, is not a sufficient basis

for jurisdiction because [it does] not mandate payment of money by the government

LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Carruth v. United

States, 627 F.2d 1068,1081 (Ct. Cl. 1980)). Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction

to hear Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment due process argument.

With respect to Plaintiffs allegations of the unauthorized disclosure of his Phonal

information, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear these claims. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a)

a taxpayer can bring a cause of action against the Treasury in a district court of the United

States to address the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information. Taylor v. United

States, 616 Fed. App’x 423, 424-25 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Because this Court is not a United

States district court,3 this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims arising from the

unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a). Gh^ari v.

United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 665, 668 (2016) (citing Taylor, 616 Fed. App x at 425).

Likewise this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider claims based on the other ,

statutes and legal authorities cited by Plaintiff. These laws either do not mandate

3 Congress established the Court of Federal Claims under Article Lof the Un*ed

U SC § 171(a). In contrast, federal district courts are created under the authority of Articl e II1of the Unrte

States Constitution. InfI Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 3 2. . .

„7 718 (19521 (“The words‘district court of the United States’ commonly describe constitutional courts

orieiISS l«

As such, the Cour, of Federai dates is a rbstect e„...y

from a federal district court.

4

APPX-C-8

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 19 Filed 07/26/24 Page 5 of 5

compensation by the federal government for damages sus

2- 42 U S.C. §§ 652, 654; 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103, 7803; 12 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3402, 3404 08 430

31 U.S.C. S§ 3729, 3802), or these laws vest jurisdiction exclusively in the federal district

courts (e'g., 12 U.S.C. § 3417; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7431, 7433).

Because this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any of the aforementioned

claims, this Court must dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(bXl)•

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to for Summary' Dismissal

(ECF 8) is GRANTED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any

appeal filed by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith Plaintiffs Motion to Pr^ed m

Forma Pauperis (ECF 2) and remaining pending motions (ECF 13 and 14) are tiius

DENIED as moot. Due to the inclusion of personally identifiable mfoirnation, the Cler

of Court is DIRECTED to seal Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Motion to Produce

(ECF 13) pursuant to Rule 5.2. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PHILIP S. HADJI

Judge

5

APPX-C-9

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 1

3n flje tHniteb States (Court of jfeberal (Claims

No. 24-511 C

Filed: July 26,2024

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

*

*

GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

*

JUDGMENT

♦

V.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant

A

*

*

*

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

Pursuant to the court’s Opinion and Order, filed July 26,2024, granting defendant’s

motion for summary dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this date, pursuant to Rule 58, that plaintiffs

complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Lisa L. Reyes

Clerk of Court

By: Ashley Kearns

Deputy Clerk

NOTE: As to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 60 days from

this date, see RCFC 58.1, re number of copies and listing of all plaintiffs. Effective December ,

2023, the appeals fee is $605.00.

APPX-D-10

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 26 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 5

In We ®niteb States Court of Jfeberal Claintf

GARLAND E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

No. 24-511

(Filed: October 22, 2024)

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

_____________________

ORDER

On Julv 26 2024, the Court issued an Opinion dismissing this matter based on a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. United States Ko. 24-511,2024 ^35492^’^ ’ *3’

Cl Julv 26, 2024). The Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly. ECF 20. On August 23,

2024, Plaintiff Garland E. Williams filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Court of

Federal Claims Rule 59, asking the Court to reconsider its Opinion and vacate judgment. ECF 21.

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.

Court of Federal Claims Rule 59 governs motions for reconsideration and provides that the

Court may grant a new trial or motion for reconsideration:

(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.

Rule 59(a)(1).

This Court has discretion to “grant a motion for reconsideration when there has been an

intervening change in the controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or

c'^r

factual or legal error or prevent manifest injustice.” Biery v. United States, 818 F.3d 704,71 (Fe .

Cir. 2016) (quoting Young v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 671, 674 (2010)) However, a plaintiff

seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances, Lee v United States

130 Fed. Cl. 243,250 (2017), and may not use the motion as a tool 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, pp. 127-128 (2d ed.l 995)).

Plaintiffs Motion, while difficult to decipher, appears to challenge the Court’s dismissal

of his case and includes conclusory allegations of error and general assertions that the Court

misinterpreted his claims. Specifically, Plaintiff first takes issue with the Court s dismissal of his

APPX-E-11

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 26 Filed 10/22/24 Page 2 of 5

Fifth Amendment takings claims.1 ECF21-1 at 17-18. Plaintiff quotes the Court as saying thatthe

entirety of his Fifth Amendment claims are not money mandating and thus outside tojurisdiction

of to CourtId This is incorrect. The language in the Court’s Opinion that Plaintiff takesi issue

with read in context, states that Fifth Amendment due process claims are not• m?ney“man^J

and'therefore^on-jurisdiclional.

2024 WL 3549213 M '1Bo* *<. .njmed.a^

nreredina and the immediately following sentences explicitly reference Plaintin sr

Amendment due process claim, id., contextualizing the cited language> and l.mttmg; it

The Court admittedly could have been more precise with its languag ,

. .

that Fifth Amendment takings claims are not money-mandating or that the Court lacks jurisdiction

over all such claims. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege any error in the Court s quoted language.

Also while Plaintiff is correct that Fifth Amendment takings claims can fall within the

jurisdiction if this Court, that does not mean his particular

Court. In its Opinion, the Court separately considered and dismissed Plaintiffs tec offset claims,

here characterized as takings claims, for lack ofjunction based on the

The Federal

§ 6402(g). Williams, 2024 WL 3549213, at *3. As stated in this Courtt s Opmior^to Federal

Circuit previously considered Plaintiff s claims, and held that Section 640 (g) provi

Court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any action ... brought to restrain or review

a reduction authorized by subsection (c),” including Plaintiff’s tax(

United States, No. 2022-1712,2023 WL 193163, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17,2Q23) (Wdhams I). Here

Plaintiff challenges the same tax offsets at issue in Williams 1, despite the Federal Circuit

previously finding that such claims are barred. ECF 1 at 19-27; id. at 2L The Court agrees wi

e

Government that Plaintiff “cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar set forth in 26 U.S.C.§ 6402 by

renackaging his challenge to the tax refund offsets as a claim for just compensation. ECF 23 at 0

TctogS^ Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347,1355 (FedXir. 2006) (explammg

that courts must look to the “true nature of the action” in ascertaining whether jurisdiction exists)).

Therefore, this Court is barred from adjudicating Plaintiff’s tax offset claims, even those now

recharacterized as takings claims, and properly found it lacked jurisdiction.

In addition to recharacterizing his tax offsets claims as takings c^ims, Plaintiff now also

recharacterizes them as claims based on the violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 3

. . §

3729 ECF21-1 at21. However, for the reasons outlined above, repackaging a tax claim as a rtA

claim is also barred by 26 U.S.C. § 6402(g). Furthermore, FCA claims are required to be brought

before a district court, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(2), which this Court is not. Therefore, the Court fully

1 To the extent Plaintiff challenges the Court’s dismissal of his due process claims, his argument

is without merit. The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims under the

due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284,288 (Fed. Cir.

2024).

2 Congress established the Court of Federal Claims under Article I of the United States

Constitution 28 U.S.C. § 171 (a). In contrast, federal district courts are created under the authority

of Article ill of the United States Constitution. Int’l Longshoremen’s &

v Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237,238 (1952) (“The words ‘district court of the United States

commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article 111 of the Constitution... ). As such,

the Court of Federal Claims is a distinct entity from a federal district court.

2

APPX-E-12

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 26 Filed 10/22/24 Page 4 of 5

fri^B^^

■

multiple courts. See, e.g., Williams v. United'States, No. 2022-1712 2023 WL 193163,at^

Cir 2023 Jan {1,2023); Williams v. Kan. State Dep t of Soc. & Rehab. S

•

1Arv

2015 WL 1272783, at »l (E.D. La. Mar. 19, 2015); Williams V.U.S. Dep I ofJust,

38, 2016 WL 1039560, at ‘I (E.D. La. Feb. 22,. 2016); R. d* ^'^5 CV m GNS 2^6

1 m 12R9 (E D La Mar 14, 2016); Williams v. U.S. Dep t of Just., No. 15-CV-lll GNb, ZUlb

WL 1532254 at *2-6 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016). Plaintiffs cumulative filings indicate the great

length he has’ gone to thwart his responsibility to remit child support payments, and no cou

inchiding this Court, has found any merit to his efforts. Again, motions for reconsideration do not

serve as an opportunity to relitigate exhausted claims and Plaintiff presents

m law

evidence or error that justifies reconsideration. Exxon Shipping Co., 554 U.S. at 485 n.5.

Therefore the Court maintains its certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appea

dPl^

not be taken in good faith, including the one filed in this matter on

September 20,2024.

Finally, Plaintiff also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which the Court takes« "

its decision not to transfer this matter to another Court with jur.sd.ct.on. ECF 21-1 at 12J^M

to 28 U S C 8 1631 transfer is appropriate when three conditions are met. (1) the transferring

.XriXton; (2) jurisdictioiTlies in another courted (3) transfer is m> *e mteres^of

justice Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

J1631). Determination of whether to transfer “rests within the sound discretion of the^feror

court, and the Court may decline to transfer the case ‘[i] such transfer would nevertheless be futile

given the weakness of plaintiffs case on the merits. Spencer v. United States, 98 Fed CL 3 ,

356 (2011) As outlined above, Plaintiffs claims primarily stem from tax offsets which are not

within the jurisdiction of any federal court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6402. Therefore, because 28

use 8 1631 only contemplates transfer to federal courts, transfer is not appropriate because no

federal c«mI would have jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 6.0; 26 U.S.C. § 6402. W.th respecuo any

other claims raised which are not barred by § 6402, the Court also declines transfer. Plaintiffs

filings are extraordinarily challenging to decipher such that the Court cannot identify any court to

which transfer would be appropriate on the basis of both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal

jurisdiction. See Metzinger v. Dep ’I of Veterans Affs, 20 F.4th 778,780 <Fe<LC'r’202 1 (

28 U S C 8 1631 transfer requires both that the transferor court lack jurisdiction and that.the

transferee court have it.”). Since the Court cannot determine with any reasonable certainty which

Court would have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims, the Court finds that transfer under 28 U. .

§ 1631 is not appropriate.

3 Indeed the word “frivolous” only appears twice in the Court’s Opinion: (1) once in recounting a

United States Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that a district court dismiss Plaintiff s actionas

frivolous; and (2) once in acknowledging the Government’s opposition to Plaintiffs.mfi>

pauperis application on grounds of Plaintiffs histoty of frivolous ht.gat.on, ECF 19 at 2-3.

4

APPX-E-14

Case l:24-cv-00511-PSH Document 26 Filed 10/22/24 Page 5 of 5

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Philip S. Hadji

PHILIP S. HADJI

Judge

5

APPX-E-15