Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-cv-02772
08-08-2023
WILLIAM F. KAETZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
Not For Publication
OPINION & ORDER
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
On June 28, 2023, this Court granted pro se Plaintiff William F. Kaetz's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court also terminated Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. D.E, 5 (the “Order”). Plaintiffs motion to vacate the Order is presently before the Court. D.E. 6. The Court reviewed Plaintiffs submission and decided the motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (b)(3), and (d)(3). Plf. Br. at 6. Through Rule 60(b), “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The rule “allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment and request the reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, newly discovered evidence, or any reason justifying relief.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005). But “Rule 60(b) motions are viewed as ‘extraordinary relief which should be granted only where extraordinary justifying circumstances are present,'” Kiburz v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 446 Fed.Appx. 434, 436 (3d Cir, 2011) (quoting Bohns v. Beloff 950 F.2d 919, 929 (3d Cir. 1991)).
Rule 60(b)(3) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment for “fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). To prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must “establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that [the adverse party] engaged in fraud or other misconduct, and that this misconduct prevented [the moving parties] from fully and fairly presenting their case.” Heriveaux v. Durkin & Durkin, LLC, 841 F, App'x 501, 504 (3d Cir. 2021) (internal citations omitted). In this instance, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Order due to alleged fraud by this Court rather than an opposing party. See Plf. Br. at 6-9. Accordingly, Rule 60(b)(3) is inapplicable.
Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to relieve a party from final judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Mistake includes errors by a judge. Kemp v. United States, - U.S. -, 142 S.Ct. 1856,1862 (2022). But a Rule 60(b) motion “may not be used as a substitute for appeal, and [] legal error, without more cannot justify granting a Rule 60(b) motion.” Holland v. Holt, 409 Fed.Appx. 494, 497 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988)). Although Plaintiff argues that this Court committed fraud, the substance of Plaintiffs arguments is that the Court purportedly committed numerous legal errors in screening Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Asa result, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). See, e.g, Nellom v. Ambrose, No. 23-1388, 2023 WL 3380622, at *1 n.l (3d Cir. 2023) (“To the extent Nellom's motion for reconsideration and this appeal were based on mere dissatisfaction with the District Court's judgment, he is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).”).
Finally, Rule 60(d)(3) provides that Rule 60 “does not limit a court's power to ... set aside a judgment for fraud on the court,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3). “A court may set aside a judgment based upon its finding of fraud on the court when an officer of the court has engaged in ‘egregious misconduct.'” In re Bressman, 874F,3d 142,150 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Herringv. United States, 424 F,3d 384, 390 (3d Cir. 2005)). Such a finding ‘“must be supported by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence' of ‘an intentional fraud.'” Id. (quoting Herring, 424 F.3d at 390) (internal punctuation omitted). Again, Plaintiffs alleged fraud amounts to perceived legal errors. Plaintiff does not identify any egregious misconduct. Rule 60(d)(3), therefore, is also inapplicable.
In sum, Plaintiff provides no legal basis to vacate the Order.
As a result, for the reasons set forth above, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this 8th day of August, 2023, ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to vacate (D.E. 6) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk's Office is directed to mail a copy of this Opinion & Order to Plaintiff.