Opinion
3:19-cv-162-SLH-KAP
06-21-2021
ANDRE YANICK AINA, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
KEITH A. PESTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The “Motion to Reopen/Refile Case Based on Extraordinary Circumstances, ” ECF no. 11, should be denied.
Report
Plaintiff filed a complaint subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act in September 2019. After screening the complaint, I recommended that it be dismissed with leave to amend. When no timely amendment was submitted, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice in June 2020. There was no appeal.
Almost eleven months after the dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff has filed the above-captioned motion, which seeks the vacating of the judgment in this case and in Aina v. Department of Corrections, No. 3:19-cv-151-SLH-KAP (W.D.Pa.), together with “a copy of both entire cases … for his civil litigation in the Middle District Court.” Plaintiff gives as his reasons: 1) the fact that he was incarcerated when he filed the complaints but now he is not; 2) reference to a nonexistent “statute of limitations exception clause of imprisonment”; and 3) invocation without explanation of “the COVID-19 state of emergency.” Plaintiff alleges no facts that would amount to extraordinary circumstances.
The motion does not coherently describe a reason to vacate the judgment that would satisfy either one of the relevant subsections of Fed.R.Civ. P. 60(b), namely Rule 60(b)(1) and (6). See Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 930 (3d Cir. 1991)(requiring a showing “extraordinary justifying circumstances” under Rule 60(b) generally, and specifically addressing Rule 60(b)(2)); Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1993)(requiring “extraordinary circumstances, ” under Rule 60(b)(6)); and Orie v. District Attorney Allegheny County, 946 F.3d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 2019)(a party's overall negligence in handling a matter precludes a finding of excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1)).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), plaintiff can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff is advised that in the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).