Peter J. Polinski Trust v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PETER J. POLINSKI TRUST,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-2002
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00568-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before DYK, LINN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Case: 25-2002 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

PETER J. POLINSKI TRUST v. US 2
The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. Peter J. Polinski, on behalf of Peter J. Po-
linski Trust, opposes the motion.1
On April 10, 2025, the United States Court of Federal
Claims entered judgment dismissing Mr. Polinski’s three
consolidated complaints. On June 9, 2025, Mr. Polinski
filed a motion for extension of time to file his motion for
reconsideration, which was attached. Dkt. No. 9. On June
17, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims denied the motion for
an extension of time. Dkt. No. 10 at 1. On August 6, 2025,
Mr. Polinski filed a notice of appeal.
The timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final deci-
sion by the Court of Federal Claims is a jurisdictional re-
quirement that cannot be waived and is not subject to
equitable tolling. See Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d
913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562
U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011). To be timely, a notice of appeal
must be received by the Court of Federal Claims within 60
days of the entry of a final decision. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2107(b), 2522. Here, Mr. Polinski’s notice of appeal was
filed too late to seek review of the April 10, 2025 judgment.
While certain post-judgment motions, including timely
motions for reconsideration, toll the time to file an appeal
until the court disposes of such motions, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C), Mr. Polinski’s motion
for an extension of time and motion for reconsideration are
not such motions. Under the Rules of that court, a motion
for reconsideration “must be filed no later than 28 days
1 Given our disposition of the appeal, we need not re-
solve whether Mr. Polinski, proceeding pro se, may repre-
sent Peter J. Polinski Trust. See Knoefler v. United Bank
of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 347–48 (8th Cir. 1994). In this
order, we treat the two as one and the same solely for con-
venience.
Case: 25-2002 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 10/27/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

PETER J. POLINSKI TRUST v. US 3
after the entry of judgment.” Rule of the Court of Federal
Claims (RCFC) 59(b)(1). And the Court of Federal Claims
lacks the power to extend that deadline. See RCFC 6(b)(2)
(“The court must not extend the time to act under RCFC
52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b).”); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(2); 11 Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice & Proce-
dure § 2817 (3d ed. 2021). Mr. Polinski’s post-judgment
motions, which were filed 60 days after the entry of judg-
ment, were untimely. See 2016 Advisory Committee Notes
to Fed. R. App. P. 4 (“A motion made after the time allowed
by the Civil Rules will not qualify as a motion that, under
Rule 4(a)(4)(A), re-starts the appeal time[.]”).2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
October 27, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
2 To whatever extent Mr. Polinski solely appeals the
Court of Federal Claims’s denial of his motion for an exten-
sion of time, his appeal lacks any basis in law or fact. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Case: 25-2002 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 10/27/2025

-- 3 of 3 --