THOMPSON v. AHSAN et al

Filing 10

OPINION. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 6/9/2014. (jjc)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RICHARD THOMPSON,

Civil Action No. 13-4140 (JAP)

Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION

ABU ASHAN, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Richard Thompson
Prison 568688
SBI # 00S0158535
New Jersey State Prison
PO Box 861
Petitioner Pro Se
PISANO, District Judge:
This matter was before the Court on Plaintiff’s filing of a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983.

The Complaint was dismissed.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Dkt. No. 8.) The Clerk
will be ordered to reopen this matter so that the Court may rule on the motion. For the following
reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought his Complaint before this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of
the Eighth Amendment due to deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s medical needs. The
Complaint was dismissed because Plaintiff did not assert facts to show “(i) a serious medical need, and
(ii) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need.” Natale v.

Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). Specifically, this Court held that the

allegations of the complaint regarding his Eighth Amendment medical claim fall short of the
requirements to support such a claim since Plaintiff had stated in his Complaint that he had been seen
by certain medical staff and had been given a suggested course of treatment.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that this Court mistakenly determined
that he was seen by medical professionals. However, as Plaintiff states in his Complaint and as
discussed in this Court’s earlier opinion, Plaintiff did have interactions with various members of the
facility medical staff. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 6.)
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that “the court may relieve a party . . .
from final judgment, order or proceeding” on the grounds of:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
“‘The general purpose of Rule 60(b) . . . is to strike a proper balance between the conflicting
principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice must be done.’” Walsh v. Krantz,
423 F. App’x 177, 179 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting Boughner v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. &
Welfare, 572 F.2d 976, 977 (3d Cir. 1978)). “Rule 60(b) is a provision for extraordinary relief and
may be raised only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Mendez v. Sullivan, 488 F.
App’x 566, 568 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d
2

Cir. 1993)). “Rule 60(b) provides that a motion for relief from judgment or order ‘shall be made
within a reasonable time,’ or if based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, ‘not more
than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.”

United States v.

Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 n.3 (3d Cir. 2003).
With respect to some of the individual provisions of Rule 60(b), “Rule 60(b)(5) may not be
used to challenge the legal conclusions on which a prior judgment or order rests, but the Rule
provides a means by which a party can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if ‘a
significant change either in factual conditions or in law’ renders continued enforcement ‘detrimental
to the public interest.’” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of
Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992)). The moving party bears the burden of establishing
that changed circumstances exist. See id.
Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all provision and provides that a party may be relieved from a final
judgment or order for “any other reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). However,
obtaining relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary and special circumstances. See Pridgen
v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 728 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “Such circumstances rarely occur
in the habeas context.” See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005).
For the purposes of this Opinion, the Court will assume, without deciding, that petitioner
filed his Rule 60(b) motion within a “reasonable time.”
In his motion, Plaintiff suggests that this Court reconsider its decision to dismiss his
Complaint because he was denied medical treatment. Plaintiff now states that the medical advice
that he received was an “off the cuff remark about buying arch supports.” The Court examined
Plaintiff’s recitation of facts and determined that he was not denied medical care such that
Defendants actions could be characterized as reckless disregard of a known risk of harm. See Farmer
3

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837–38 (1994). It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to assert that he was not
properly treated, however, as stated in this Court’s earlier opinion, an inmate’s disagreement with
medical professionals “as to the proper medical treatment” does not support an Eighth Amendment
violation. Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates, 834 F.2d at 346. Although Plaintiff states in his
motion that he was “NEVER” seen by medical professionals, his Complaint asserts facts to indicate that
he was seen by various members of the medical staff, including an instance where Nurse Practitioner

Johnson conferred with Doctor Ahsan regarding Plaintiff’s medical complaint, conducted an
appointment with Plaintiff, and determined a course of action.
Plaintiff has not shown the extraordinary and special circumstances necessary to obtain relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). See Pridgen, 380 F.3d at 728. As stated in this Court’s earlier Opinion,
Plaintiff has not offered any allegations of deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Plaintiff
presents no facts or arguments to show that Defendants here exhibited a state of mind equivalent to
reckless disregard of a known risk of harm. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment

pursuant to Rule 60(b) will be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
appropriate order will be entered.
/s/ Joel A. Pisano
JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge

DATED: June 9, 2014

4

An