Murphy v. United States

ORIGINA

3Jn tbe Wniteb $tates QCourt of jfeberal QCiaims

No. 14-536C FILED (Filed: August 5, 2014)

UNREPORTED AUG - 5 2014 U.S. COURT OF ) FEDERAL CLAIMS WILLIAM R. MURPHY, ) )

Plaintiff, ) ) Pro Se; Motion for reconsideration V. ) denied )

THE UNITED STATES , ) )

Defendant. ) ~~~~~~~~~-)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the court is prose plaintiff William R. Murphy' s ("Mr. Murphy" or "plaintiff') July 21 , 2014 letter requesting reconsideration of the court' s prior order of July 16, 2014. In its prior order, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Murphy's request for a declaration that he should receive a tax-exempt "line of duty" pension from the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), which the court understands is responsible for administering Mr. Murphy's federal pension. 1 To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(a) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), a movant must identify "a manifest error of law, or mistake of fact. " Shapiro v. Sec' y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 353 , 361 (Fed. Cl. 2012), affd, 503 F. App 'x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Specifically, the party seeking reconsideration must show "(i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of previously unavailable evidence; or (iii) the necessity of granting the motion to prevent manifest injustice." Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 132, 133 (2012).

Plaintiff has not established a proper basis for reconsideration. In its prior order, the court considered whether Mr. Murphy had stated a tax refund claim because his complaint raised concerns over the tax-implications and label that OPM had assigned to his federal annuity. In his request for reconsideration, Mr. Murphy clarifies that he is not raising a claim against the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Rather, Mr. Murphy is seeking a court order declaring that he should be receiving a tax-exempt "line of duty" pension, rather than as an "ordinary" pension that would be subject to additional taxes.

As explained in the court's prior order, this court lacks jurisdiction (i.e., authority) to award declaratory relief in the absence of a claim for money damages against the federal government. See Nat'l Air Traffic Controllers Ass'n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(per curiam). Plaintiffs claim against OPM is not a claim for money damages. Plaintiffs request for reconsideration does not, therefore, present the court with any basis for deviating from its frior decision. Thus, Mr. Murphy's request for reconsideration must be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.