Constantine Ananiades v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CONSTANTINE ANANIADES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1951
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01666-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
Decided: March 10, 2026
______________________
CONSTANTINE ANANIADES , Arcadia, CA, pro se.
MARIANA T ERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by ELIZABETH MARIE H OSFORD, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , D OUGLAS K. MICKLE, BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and R EYNA, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 25-1951 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

ANANIADES v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Constantine S. Ananiades appeals a United States
Court of Federal Claims order denying his renewed motion
for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2022, Mr. Ananiades sued the United States in the
Court of Federal Claims alleging, among other claims, tak-
ings and breach-of-contract claims relating to a physical
container he submitted to the United States Department of
the Air Force (Air Force) in 1984. Appx. 1–14.2 The Court
of Federal Claims dismissed his complaint for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction, determining the applicable six-
year statute of limitations barred Mr. Ananiades’ claims.
Appx. 50–53; 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
We affirmed the Court of Federal Claims decision.
Appx. 54–60. After denying both Mr. Ananiades’ petition
for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, we
issued our mandate. S. Appx. 12;3 S. Appx. 13–14;
S. Appx. 23. Mr. Ananiades then filed several motions for
relief from judgment under various sections of RCFC 60(b)
and motions for reconsideration in the Court of Federal
Claims, all of which were denied. Appx. 108–11 (July 2024
Order denying Motion for Relief); Appx. 139–43 (January
2025 Order denying Motion for Reconsideration and Relief
from Judgment); Appx. 155–56 (April 2025 Order denying
Renewed Motion for Reconsideration); Appx. 177–78 (May
2025 Order denying Renewed Motion for Relief). Mr. Ana-
niades appeals the Court of Federal Claims May 2025
1 Rule 60(b)(6) refers to that of the Rules of the Court
of Federal Claims (RCFC).
2 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed with Appel-
lant’s brief.
3 “S. Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Appel-
lee’s brief.
Case: 25-1951 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

ANANIADES v. US 3
denial of his last motion for relief from judgment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Court of Federal Claims denial of a mo-
tion for relief from judgment under RCFC 60(b) for abuse
of discretion. Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888
F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2018). An abuse of discretion
occurs when a court’s ruling rests on an incorrect legal con-
clusion or on a clearly erroneous factual finding. Id. Under
RCFC 60(b)(6), “the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding”
for “any other reason that justifies relief.” But such relief
should be granted only in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Progressive, 888 F.3d at 1255 (quoting Liljeberg v. Health
Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988)).
In denying Mr. Ananiades’ renewed motion for relief
from judgment, the Court of Federal Claims explained that
Mr. Ananiades had not identified any extraordinary cir-
cumstances warranting relief but instead “attempt[ed] to
relitigate the dismissal of his case,” which the court previ-
ously determined to be “decisively time-barred.”
Appx. 177; Appx. 53. The Court of Federal Claims under-
stood Mr. Ananiades’ renewed motion as challenging
(1) the court’s treatment of his allegations in dismissing
the complaint, (2) the standard of review we applied in af-
firming the dismissal, and (3) the court’s application of its
timing rules. Appx. 177–78; Appx. 161–66. The Court of
Federal Claims noted these challenges amounted to “at-
tempts by Mr. Ananiades to retry his case after he ha[d]
been afforded a full and fair opportunity to do so.”
Appx. 178. Seeing no circumstances in Mr. Ananiades’ re-
newed motion for relief or his previously denied motions
that warrant relief from judgment under RCFC 60(b)(6),
the court denied Mr. Ananiades’ renewed motion.
On appeal, Mr. Ananiades raises previously litigated
issues from prior orders and opinions. See, e.g., Ananiades
Case: 25-1951 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

ANANIADES v. US 4
Br. 8–16 (challenging the court’s consideration of his fac-
tual allegations in dismissing the complaint). An appeal
from a denial of a RCFC 60(b)(6) motion, however, does not
reopen the underlying decision for review. Browder v. Dir.,
Dep’t of Corrs. of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978).4
Mr. Ananiades provides no basis for us to conclude the
Court of Federal Claims abused its discretion in denying
his renewed motion for relief from judgment.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Ananiades’ remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
4 Although Browder references Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), 434 U.S. at 263, the language of that Rule
(at least with respect to 60(b)(6)) matches that of RCFC
60(b). See Info. Sys. and Networks Corp. v. United States,
994 F.2d 792, 794 & n.3 (Fed.Cir.1993) (applying the
Browder standard of review because “Rule 60(b) of the
[Court of Federal Claims] is a virtual duplicate of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)”).
Case: 25-1951 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2026

-- 4 of 4 --