Opinion
Civil Action 19-9097 (MAS) (TJB)
06-20-2023
THOMAS I. GAGE, Plaintiff, v. SOMERSET COUNTY et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MICHAEL A. SHIPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Thomas I. Gage's (“Plaintiff') Motion to Vacate. (ECF No. 75.) Defendants Somerset County, Somerset County Jail, Jay B. Bohn, Esq., Christopher S. Porrino, Geoffrey Soriano, and Michael C. Schutta (collectively, “Defendants”) opposed (ECF Nos. 76, 78, 79), and Plaintiff did not reply. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the Motion without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion.
The Court understands Plaintiffs instant Motion as a request to vacate its September 6, 2022 Order (“Sept. 6 Order”) (ECF No. 69) denying Plaintiffs prior motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 62). The instant Motion states that it is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) based on “fraud upon the Court.” (See ECF No. 75.) “Rule 60(d) permits a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment in order to ‘prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.'” Jackson v. Danberg, 656 F.3d 157, 166 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998)).
To the extent Plaintiffs Motion is also intended to vacate the Third Circuit's March 3 Order (ECF No. 73) affirming the District Court's Sept. 6 Order, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. See Green Tree Serv., LLC v. Cargille, No. 15-938, 2019 WL 6135442, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 19, 2019) (explaining that, in accordance with Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 107.2, district courts cannot “rule on an order issued by the Third Circuit.”)
Hereinafter, all references to “Rule” or “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A district court may only review a Rule 60 motion “based on matters that came to light after the appellate court has issued a decision.” Reardon v. Zonies, No. 15-8597,2020 WL 620218, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2020) (applying the reasoning to both Rule 60(b) and Rule 60(d) motions) (quoting Bernheim v. Jacobs, 144 Fed.Appx. 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2005)). When reviewing a Rule 60 motion brought following an appeal, this Court is “without jurisdiction to alter the mandate of [the appellate court] on the basis of matters included or includable in the party's prior appeal.” Id. (applying this reasoning to both Rule 60(b) and Rule 60(d) motions) (quoting Bernheim, 144 Fed.Appx. at 222 (internal quotations omitted)).
Here, Plaintiff requests the Court to do precisely what it cannot. Plaintiffs primary argument-that judgments against him were entered on the basis of forged documents-persists through his many filings and many cases. (See Mot. Am. Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 62 (arguing fraud on the court based on “court's records such as forged Sheriffs [d]eeds, [and] bogus and forged state court orders”); Mem. in Support of Compl. 6, ECF No. 40 (requesting that the Court convert Plaintiffs civil case to a criminal case based on fraud on the Court); Resp. to Court Order 13, ECF No. 24 (“[I]t is obvious . . . that the signature on [the state court order] is not of Yolanda Ciccone and therefore is a forged and bogus court order.”).) Plaintiff presented this same issue to the Third Circuit in his appeal. (Not. Of Appeal 2, ECF No. 71 (citing to Defendants unlawful actions including fraud).) After the Third Circuit denied Plaintiffs appeal and affirmed the Court's Order (see ECF Nos. 73, 74), the Court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter.
Accordingly, IT IS on this 20th day of June 2023, ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 75) is DENIED.