NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-1178
__________
JOHN E. REARDON,
Appellant
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JUDGE FREEMAN, of Camden County; JUDGE
PUGLIESE, of Camden County; JUDGE HAYDEN, of the State Appellate Court;
JUDGE PAYNE, of the State Appellate Court; JUDGE SHARAFI, of the State Appellate
Court; U.S. GOVERNMENT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-05363)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 14, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, Jr., and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 11, 2020)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
John Reardon appeals an order denying post-judgment motions that he filed years
after the dismissal of his complaint. For the following reasons, we will affirm in part and
will dismiss the appeal in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
On September 9, 2013, Reardon filed suit against the State of New Jersey, several
state court judges (collectively “State Defendants”), and the U.S. Government. Reardon
sought to challenge as unconstitutional a 1992 state criminal conviction and the
subsequent denial of his post-conviction relief.
After various amendments to the complaint, the District Court granted the State
Defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 27, 2014. The District Court determined that
Reardon’s claims were barred by the doctrines of sovereign and judicial immunity, as
well as the Rooker-Feldman1 and Heck2 doctrines. The Court also denied Reardon’s
request to file another amended complaint, finding that it would be futile. On July 7,
2014, Reardon timely filed a motion for reconsideration, which was ultimately denied on
January 7, 2015. Reardon did not appeal, electing instead to file various requests for
further relief in the District Court. The case was re-opened briefly on July 2, 2015, so
that the District Court could deny the various requests, and then the case was marked
terminated.
Nearly four years later, on June 4, 2019, Reardon filed a motion “to set aside
1
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462 (1983).
2
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2
dismissal and for leave to Amend.” Dkt. #42. Subsequently, Reardon submitted a flurry
of twenty-four additional filings, which included a motion “for an order of compliance.”
Dkt. #53. Within a single order entered January 2, 2020, the District Court re-opened the
case, denied both motions, and ordered the case terminated once again.3 Reardon filed a
notice of appeal on January 24, 2020.
Initially, we must note the scope of our jurisdiction. On appeal, Reardon seeks to
revisit the District Court’s June 27, 2014 opinion, which granted the State Defendants’
motion to dismiss, and the District Court’s subsequent denials of his post-judgment
motions on January 7 and July 2, 2015. We lack appellate jurisdiction to do so.
Reardon’s notice of appeal was filed January 24, 2020, which is well outside the time that
would allow us to review any of those decisions by the District Court—even when
considering any tolling of the time to appeal by Reardon’s post-judgment motions. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i) (providing for a 60-day appeal period when the United
States is a party); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (noting if a party timely files a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) in the district court, the time to file an appeal runs from
the entry of the order disposing of that motion). However, we have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 to consider the District Court’s order denying Reardon’s motion “to set
3
Treating the motion to “set aside dismissal for leave to Amend” as another motion for
reconsideration, the District Court pointed to its previous January 7, 2015 opinion and
order, and noted that Reardon’s motion was essentially a repeat of his previous motions.
The District Court denied the motion “for an order of compliance” because it contained
discovery-related requests, and the court did not have any pending litigation over which it
had jurisdiction.
3
aside dismissal and for leave to Amend” and his motion “for an order of compliance.”
See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1); Long v. Atl. City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 446 n.19 (3d Cir.
2012) (stating that this Court has “jurisdiction to review a timely appealed order
disposing of an untimely motion for reconsideration”); Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc.,
802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
Reardon’s motion “to set aside dismissal and for leave to Amend” is, as best as we
can tell, a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
and/or for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).4 We review denials of such motions for an abuse
of discretion. Long, 670 F.3d at 446 (stating that “our review of the order denying
reconsideration is subject to a more deferential and circumscribed standard of review than
would apply if we also were to have jurisdiction to consider the underlying dismissal
order”); Reform Party of Allegheny Cty. v. Allegheny Cty. Dep’t of Elections, 174 F.3d
305, 311 (3d Cir. 1999) (Rule 60(b) standard). Likewise, we review the denial of
Reardon’s motion “for an order of compliance”—which seeks relief on discovery-related
matters—for an abuse of discretion. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760,
778 (3d Cir. 2000). “To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, [Reardon] must show that
the District Court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable.” Hart v.
4
The District Court treated the filing as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
However, the motion does ask the court to re-open the complaint because of “fraud upon
the court.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); see also Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201,
208 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting an appellate court is free to recharacterize a motion to match
the substance of the relief sought). Regardless of how we characterize Reardon’s motion,
our conclusion is the same.
4
Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141, 148 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying either motion.
First, Reardon’s motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) and/or Rule 60(b) was filed far past the
time allowed for such a post-judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); 60(c). Second,
as noted by the District Court, Reardon’s motion was essentially a repeat of his prior
motions, and thus was an improper attempt to relitigate matters the District Court had
already previously determined. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5
(2008) (noting “Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it may not
be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have
been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Quite
simply, Reardon failed to present to the District Court any of the grounds that would
allow a judgment to be altered, amended, or set aside. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(6);
United States ex rel. Schumann v. AstraZeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d
Cir. 2014) (noting a judgment “may be altered or amended if the party seeking
reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Likewise, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reardon’s motion “for
an order of compliance,” as the case was marked terminated on July 2, 2015, and thus the
5
court had no pending action before it when Reardon sought his relief four years later.
Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the
District Court entered January 2, 2020. In all other respects, we will dismiss the appeal
for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
6