DOOLEY v. BRYANT et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 11/1/2019. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEREX DOOLEY,
Plaintiff
vs.

BRYANT, et al.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. l:14-cv-00194 (Erie)

RICHARD A. LANZILLO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT [ECF No. 55]

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff Lerex Dooley's Motion for Relief from
Judgment, filed on October 4, 2019, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF
No. 55). Plaintiffs motion asserts that he attended a settlement conferences on February 10,
2017, during which an agreement was reached whereby Plaintiffs lawsuit, brought pursuant to
section 1983, would be voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiff states that a central term related to the
amount of" street time credit" he would receive under the settlement. Plaintiff now asserts that,
less than 72 hours after the settlement was reached, he discovered that he was, in fact, not
eligible for "street time credit." Plaintiff now brings this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the settlement that was reached on February 10, 2017.
Rule 60(b) and (c) state:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion
and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

1

(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.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable
time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry
of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Here, Plaintiff styles his motion as seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6),
-,
which is the "catch-all" provision allowini the Court to set aside a judgment for "any other
reason that justifies relief." However, the basis for his motion is more suited for the "surprise"
or "mistake" provision of Rule 60(b )(1 ), because he alleges that he was not aware until after the
settlement agreement was reached that he was not eligible for "street time credit." Thus, the
relevant time period during which his motion must be brought is one-year after the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(l). He cannot avoid that time bar by resorting to Rule 60(b)(6). See Walsh
v. United States, 639 Fed. Appx. 108, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2016), (3d Cir. 1975) (Rule 60(b)(6) is not
intended as a means by which the time limitations of 60(b)(1 )-(3) maybe circumvented); Arrieta
v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2006) ("if the asserted ground for relief falls within one
of the enumerated grounds ... subject to the one-year time limit of Rule 60(b), relief under the
residual provision of Rule 60(b)( 6) is not available"). Thus, because Plaintiffs motion was filed
outside of the one-year time period, it is untimely.
Even if Plaintiffs motion was appropriately brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), motions
brought under this provision "must be made within a reasonable time." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(l).
Plaintiff filed his motion nearly three years after the Court approved of the settlement, which is
2

not within a reasonable time. See, e.g., Moolenaar v. Gov 't of the V.1, 822 F.2d 1342, 1348 (3d
Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(b)(6) motion filed almost two years after judgment was not made within a
reasonable time). Thus, Plaintiffs motion is untimely even if brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).
Further, he has provided no excuses for his failure to bring this motion within either time period
proscribed by Rule 60(c). For these reasons, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

Dated: November 1, 2019

RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge

3