THIEME v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/29/2025. (ld).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHRISTOPHER THIEME,
Civil Action No. 19-15507 (SDW)
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
IT APPEARING THAT:
1. On December 22, 2016, this Court entered an amended judgment of conviction
sentencing Petitioner Christopher Thieme to 210 months imprisonment. (Docket No. 16-294 at
ECF No. 17). Petitioner did not appeal.
2. Two and a half years later, on or about June 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion
purporting to seek relief either under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or the writ of audita querela. (Docket No.
16-294 at ECF No. 18).
3. On June 27, 2019, this Court entered an order finding that Petitioner’s criminal motion
could only proceed as a motion to vacate sentence under § 2255, and providing Petitioner with the
notice required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). (Docket No. 16-294 at ECF No.
19). Petitioner thereafter filed a response to that order, electing to have his previous motion
recharacterized as a § 2255 motion and to proceed on that motion. (Docket No. 16-294 at ECF
No. 20).
4. On September 3, 2019, this Court entered an order screening Petitioner’s motion to
vacate sentence and entered an order directing Petitioner to show cause why his motion should not
be dismissed as untimely filed. (ECF No. 5).
1
8. In response to the Order to Show Case, Petitioner argued in relevant part that he should
receive equitable tolling because he believed his plea agreement was unconstitutional and
otherwise led to a miscarriage of justice. (ECF No. 8 at 10-13).
10. This Court dismissed the § 2255 motion as untimely on March 24, 2020. (ECF No.
17).
11. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a certificate of
appealability. Thieme v. United States, No. 20-1839, 2020 WL 6707326, at *1 (3d Cir. July 29,
2020). Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the
petition. Thieme v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 863 (2020).
12. Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 60(b) and 60(d) on July 19, 2024. (ECF No. 23). Petitioner specifically relies on Rules
60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3). (Id. at 1).
13. Rule 60(b)(6) allows a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order
for “any … reason that justifies relief.” “[A] Rule 60(b) motion may not be used as a substitute
for an appeal, and that legal error, without more does not warrant relief under that provision … .”
United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Supreme Court has noted that “our cases have required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6)
to show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment.
Such
circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535
(2005).
14. Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), “[a] court may set aside a judgment based upon its finding
of fraud on the court when an officer of the court has engaged in ‘egregious misconduct.’” In re
Bressman, 874 F.3d 142, 150 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d 384, 390
2
(3d Cir. 2005)). Bribery or fabrication of evidence are examples of egregious misconduct. Harris
v. Lesko, No. 24-2604, 2025 WL 88835, at *2 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).
15. Courts “employ a demanding standard for independent actions alleging fraud upon the
court requiring: (1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3) which is directed at the
court itself; and (4) that in fact deceives the court.” Herring, 424 F.3d at 390. A party alleging
fraud upon the court must support their motion with “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.”
Id. at 387 (internal quotation marks omitted).
16. Plaintiff's motion must be denied because it fails to identify any intervening change in
the relevant law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its order, or an
error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest injustice. Moreover, Plaintiff
has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) or Rule
60(d)(3). An appropriate order follows.
Hon. Susan D. Wigenton,
United States District Judge
Dated: January 29, 2025
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?