Background
Peter J. Polinski sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the government unlawfully seized or took bonds, international bills of exchange, GSA bonds, trust certificates, and safekeeping receipts that he had attempted to use to acquire various luxury assets. The Claims Court concluded that neither the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause nor 31 U.S.C. § 3123 supplied jurisdiction over his allegations and dismissed the complaint on August 12, 2025.
Polinski timely moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, but the Claims Court denied that motion on September 3, 2025. He filed a renewed motion on September 16 under Rule 59(e), or alternatively Rule 60(b), which the court denied on October 22. Polinski filed his notice of appeal on November 5, challenging both the original dismissal and the denial of his renewed postjudgment motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit dismissed Polinski’s appeal from the August 12 judgment as untimely. Because the United States was a party, he had 60 days from the September 3 disposition of his timely Rule 59(e) motion to appeal. His November 5 notice came after that deadline, and his September 16 renewed motion did not extend the appeal period because it was filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment. The same reasoning foreclosed any timely appeal from the Claims Court’s September 3 admonishment concerning his litigation tactics.
The court affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. Polinski’s arguments that he had sufficiently alleged takings, implied-in-fact contract, and fiduciary-duty claims identified no authority or new evidence showing that the original judgment rested on a mistake of law or fact. Because his motion merely attempted to relitigate the merits, the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion by denying it. The renewed Rule 59(e) ruling was not independently appealable.
Key Takeaways
- A timely Rule 59(e) motion can toll the deadline to appeal, but a later renewed motion filed outside the 28-day period does not restart or further extend that deadline.
- Rule 60(b) cannot be used simply to relitigate arguments rejected in the original judgment.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed only the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, dismissing the appeal from the underlying jurisdictional judgment as untimely.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential decision underscores that postjudgment motions do not automatically preserve appellate review. Litigants must calculate the appeal deadline from the disposition of a qualifying timely motion and cannot rely on a successive, untimely motion to extend that deadline.
It also reinforces the limited role of Rule 60(b): a movant must identify a recognized basis for extraordinary relief, rather than repackaging merits arguments the trial court has already considered.