Background
Ricardo Jose Calderón López, proceeding pro se, sued the United States in June 2025, alleging that federal district court personnel in California had violated his civil rights by blocking his access to the district court in a separate matter. He applied to proceed in forma pauperis, representing that he had no income and relied on food stamps. The court denied the application after considering his extensive history of unsuccessful federal litigation, finding similar deficiencies in his complaint, and questioning whether his application accurately described his finances. It ordered him to pay the $405 filing fee within 30 days.
López moved for reconsideration, alleging an abuse of discretion and fraud. On August 28, 2025, the court denied reconsideration because he offered no evidence of fraud, no reason to revisit the court’s assessment of his complaint, and no correction of the deficiencies in his fee-waiver application. The court gave him until September 11 to pay and again warned that nonpayment would result in dismissal. After he failed to meet that deadline, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute on September 19. The Federal Circuit later construed López’s mandamus petition as an appeal and dismissed it for failure to prosecute after he did not respond to its orders.
On July 13, 2026, the Court of Federal Claims received López’s motion seeking relief under RCFC 60(b) from the order denying reconsideration. He again asserted that the court had abused its discretion in denying in forma pauperis status and that fraud had prevented him from receiving a fee waiver.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Rule 60(b) relief as untimely. López filed the motion 319 days after the August 28, 2025 reconsideration order. Although that period was within Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year outer limit for claims based on mistake or fraud, the court held that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time because López gave no explanation for the delay. His current arguments were nearly identical to those he had made in seeking reconsideration, indicating that their factual bases were already known to him.
The court also held that the motion failed on the merits. Rule 60(b) cannot be used merely to relitigate arguments that the court previously considered and rejected. López identified no legal error warranting relief under RCFC 60(b)(1), and his vague allegations of internal and external fraud did not constitute the clear and convincing evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party required under RCFC 60(b)(3).
Key Takeaways
- Filing a Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) motion within one year does not automatically make it timely; the movant must also act within a reasonable time under the circumstances.
- An unexplained 319-day delay was unreasonable where the movant already knew the grounds asserted in the motion.
- Rule 60(b) does not permit a litigant to reargue previously rejected claims, and unsupported allegations of fraud do not satisfy Rule 60(b)(3)’s clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year period is an outer limit, not a guaranteed filing window. Parties seeking relief from a judgment or order must explain their timing and proceed promptly once the asserted grounds are known.
It also illustrates the demanding substantive standard for reopening a ruling: repetition of earlier arguments is insufficient, and fraud-based relief requires concrete evidence rather than generalized accusations.