Boldrini v. Wilson et al

Filing 133

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 119 MOTION for Relief from Judgment filed by Antonello Boldrini Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 2/28/14. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONELLO BOLDRINI,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-11-1771
(JUDGE CAPUTO)

MARTIN R. WILSON, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Antonello Boldrini’s (“Boldrini”) Motion for Relief
from Judgment. (Doc. 119.) Boldrini commenced this action against Defendants Martin R.
Wilson, D. Peter Johnson, Jane Doe, Daniel Barrett, F. Cortez Bell, III, William A. Shaw, Jr.,
and Carol Ponce (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 23, 2011. (Compl.) Defendants
moved to dismiss the Complaint, (Docs. 7; 12), and, on August 7, 2012, Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46) recommending that
Boldrini’s constitutional claims be dismissed with prejudice and the Court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Boldrini’s state law claims. Boldrini filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (Docs. 47; 48.) Once the objections were fully briefed, I
adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Boldrini’s constitutional claims
with prejudice. (Docs. 63; 64.)
Thereafter, Boldrini filed multiple motions for reconsideration and for discovery.
(Docs. 65; 72-77; 95; 98; 103.) These motions were denied. (Docs. 93; 97; 109; 116.)
Boldrini then filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. (Doc. 110.) Boldrini appealed the orders dismissing the Complaint, denying his
motion to amend his complaint, denying his motions for reconsideration, and denying his
requests for discovery. See Boldrini v. Wilson, - - - F. App’x - - -, 2013 WL 5663874, at *1

(3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2013). The Third Circuit, on October 18, 2013, affirmed the dismissal of
the Complaint and the denial of Boldrini’s motions to amend, for reconsideration, and for
discovery. See id. at *1-3.
On November 14, 2013, Boldrini filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Third
Circuit. The Third Circuit denied the petition on December 6, 2013. On December 16,
2013, the Third Circuit issued a mandate.
Following the issuance of the mandate, Boldrini, on December 26, 2013, filed the
instant motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. 119.) Boldrini argues that he is entitled to relief from judgment pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(2) based on “newly discovered evidence”. He also contends that relief from
judgment is warranted as a result of “fraud” under Rule 60(b)(3).
In opposing Boldrini’s motion for relief from judgment, Defendants raise two related
arguments. First, they argue that the purported “newly discovered evidence” is not in fact
“new”. According to Defendants, this evidence was presented to the Third Circuit on
appeal. See Boldrini, 2013 WL 5663874, at *2 (“Boldrini also presented what he called
newly discovered evidence- a copy of his criminal record that does not list any of the
felonies with which he was charged.”). Defendants also note that the purported “newly
discovered evidence” attached to the instant motion, a certified letter from the Pennsylvania
State Police Central Repository- Expungement Unit, was, in fact, presented to the Third
Circuit by Boldrini as an exhibit to his petition for rehearing en banc. Relatedly, Defendants
argue that because the “newly discovered evidence” was included in his appeal, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to alter the mandate of the Third Circuit.
Boldrini’s motion for relief from judgment will be denied. A “district court is without
jurisdiction to alter the mandate of [the Third Circuit] on the basis of matters included or
includable in [a party’s] prior appeal.” Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 679 F.2d 336, 337

2

(3d Cir. 1982). Based on Seese and the Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Oil v.
United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S. Ct. 31, 50 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1976), the Third Circuit has
explained that a “a Rule 60(b) motion based on matters that were before the Court on
appeal, . . . may not be reviewed subsequently by the district court,” while “a Rule 60(b)
motion based on matters that came to light after the appellate court has issued a decision,
. . . may be reviewed by the district court.” Bernheim v. Jacobs, 144 F. App’x 218, 222 (3d
Cir. 2005). Here, the “newly discovered evidence” presented by Boldrini was included in his
appeal to the Third Circuit. In its opinion affirming the dismissal of Boldrini’s action, the
Third Circuit rejected Boldrini’s claim that “newly discovered evidence” provided a basis for
reconsideration of the dismissal of his constitutional claims. See Boldrini, 2013 WL
5663874, at *2. Then, after his appeal was denied, Boldrini filed a petition for rehearing en
banc in the Third Circuit. Attached to that petition was the certified letter that Boldrini claims
warrants relief from judgment as “newly discovered evidence”. The Third, as noted, denied
the petition. Because this matter was presented on appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
alter the Third Circuit’s mandate. Moreover, because Boldrini’s allegations of fraud and
falsified documents were included in his appeal to the Third Circuit, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to address these matters as well. Boldrini’s motion for relief from judgment will
therefore be denied.

An appropriate order follows.

February 28, 2014
Date

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge

3