REARDON v. ZONIES et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Plaintiff's 93 Motion for Relief and 104 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 7/9/2018. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOHN E. REARDON,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
15-8597 (JBS-KMW)

v.
MAGISTRATE ZONIES, et al.,

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon motions by Plaintiff
for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and
(6) [Docket Item 93], and to amend the Complaint. [Docket Item
104.] The Court finds as follows:
1.

In this case, Plaintiff John Reardon, pro se

(“Plaintiff”) generally alleges that he was denied his right to
a jury trial when he was fined for various traffic violations in
1988. [See generally Docket Item 1.] Plaintiff moved to amend
the Complaint [Docket Item 33], which the Court denied without
prejudice. [Docket Item 48.] Defendants subsequently moved to
dismiss all claims against them [Docket Item 49], which the
Court granted. [Docket Items 68 & 70.] Plaintiff then filed a
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal Order [Docket Item
71], which the Court denied. [Docket Items 89 & 90.] Plaintiff
appealed the Court’s Orders dismissing his complaint and denying
his motion for reconsideration and leave to amend [Docket Items

48, 70, and 90] to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. [Docket Items 91 & 92.] The Third Circuit affirmed.
Reardon v. Zonies, 2018 WL 1747739 (3d Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).
2.

While his appeal was pending before the Third Circuit,

Plaintiff filed the present Rule 60(b) motion. [Docket Item 93.]
After the Third Circuit affirmed, Plaintiff filed the motion to
amend the Complaint. [Docket Item 104.] Both motions must be
denied because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.
3.

Rule 60(b) provides specific bases for reconsideration

of a “final judgment, order or proceeding,” including, as
relevant here, due to “newly discovered evidence” or “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (6).
4.

A Rule 60(b) motion is “addressed to the sound

discretion of the trial court guided by accepted legal
principles applied in light of all the relevant circumstances.”
Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 648 (3d Cir. 1981). Rule 60(b)
“does not confer upon the district courts a ‘standardless
residual of discretionary power to set aside judgments.’”
Moolenaar v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 (3d
Cir. 1987). “Rather, relief under Rule 60(b) is available only
under such circumstances that the ‘overriding interest in the
finality and repose of judgments may properly be overcome.’”
Tischio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 511, 533 (D.N.J. 1998)
(quoting Martinez-McBean v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d
2

908, 913 (3d Cir. 1977); see also Moolenaar, 822 F.2d at 1346
(“The remedy provided by Rule 60(b) is ‘extraordinary and
special circumstances must justify granting relief under it.”)
(internal citation omitted). “Rule 60(b) must be applied
‘[s]ubject to the propositions that the finality of judgments is
a sound principle that should not lightly be cast aside, [and] .
. . is not a substitute for appeal.” Kock v. Gov. of the Virgin
Islands, 811 F.2d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 1987) (internal citation
omitted).
5.

Once an appeal is taken, a Rule 60(b) motion may only

be properly reviewed by the district court “based on matters
that come to light after the appellate court has issued a
decision.” Bernheim v. Jacobs, 144 F. App'x 218, 222; see also
Standard Oil v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 18 (1976). Thus, the
Third Circuit has held that, “when reviewing a Rule 60(b) motion
brought following an appeal, district courts are ‘without
jurisdiction to alter the mandate of [the appellate court] on
the basis of matters included or includable in the party's prior
appeal.’” Berheim, 144 F. App’x at 222 (quoting Seese v.
Volswagenwerk, A.G., 679 F.2d 336, 337 (3d Cir. 1982)).
6.

As noted above, Plaintiff filed his Rule 60(b) motion

[Docket Item 93] shortly after he appealed the Court’s Orders to
the Circuit Court [see Docket Item 91], but before the Third
Circuit affirmed. [See Docket Items 101 & 102.] The Rule 60(b)
3

motion thus necessarily involves “matters included or includable
in the party’s prior appeal,” and not “matters that come to
light after the appellate court has issued a decision.” Berheim,
144 F. App’x at 222. Moreover, none of Plaintiff’s current
submissions contain any relevant evidence that was not already
presented to this Court or the Third Circuit during prior
proceedings. Nor does Plaintiff raise any arguments that were
not previously raised. These matters have already been decided
several times by this Court, and now affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. This litigation is over.1
7.

For the reasons explained above, this Court no longer

has jurisdiction over this matter, which has been dismissed and
affirmed. It would, therefore, be futile for Plaintiff to amend.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown;
IT IS this

9th

day of

July

, 2018 hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for relief [Docket Item 93]
and to amend the Complaint [Docket Item 104], shall be, and
hereby are, DENIED.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge
1

Once the Third Circuit dismissed his appeal, Plaintiff’s sole
avenue to challenge this Court’s dismissal Order and Orders
denying reconsideration and for leave to amend was to file a
petition of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. To this
Court’s knowledge, Plaintiff did not file such a petition.
4