Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03827/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03827-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

DLD-68 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07- 3827

___________

PHILIP J. KERRIGAN,

 Appellant

v.

BRUCE SMOLLER

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-03117 )

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

 

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 29, 2007

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed April 1, 2008)

 

 OPINION

 

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Phillip Kerrigan, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District

Court’s denial of his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b). We exercise

Case: 07-3827 Document: 0031651641 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2008
2

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s order for abuse

of discretion. Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 209 (3d. Cir. 2002). Kerrigan is

proceeding in forma pauperis, so we must dismiss his appeal if it lacks arguable merit. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In March 2004, Kerrigan filed a lawsuit against Department of Labor

Secretary Elaine Chao, arguing that the Department had unlawfully terminated his

disability benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). The District

Court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a

due process violation. See Kerrigan v. Chao, No. 04-1189, 2004 WL 2397396 (E.D. Pa.

October 26, 2004). We affirmed. See Kerrigan v. Chou, 151 Fed. Appx. 129 (3d Cir.

2005). Subsequently, Kerrigan filed the instant lawsuit, this time suing Dr. Bruce Smoller,

the physician who reviewed his medical records for the Employees Compensation Appeals

Board in the Labor Department’s administrative proceedings. 

On July 20, 2007, the District Court dismissed Kerrigan’s lawsuit as an

impermissible collateral attack on its prior decision in Kerrigan v. Chao. Kerrigan filed a

Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s July 20th order, alleging mistake, fraud, and

newly discovered evidence. The District Court rejected the motion because it satisfies

none of the grounds under Rule 60(b), and instead merely reasserts the claims Kerrigan

made in his prior lawsuit. To the extent that Kerrigan seeks to develop evidence of fraud

on the part of Department through his Rule 60(b) motion, it is precluded by collateral

estoppel. 

Case: 07-3827 Document: 0031651641 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2008
3

We agree with the District Court. Because its denial of Kerrigan’s motion did not

rest upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper

application of law to fact, the court did not abuse its discretion. Reform Party of

Allegheny County v. Allegeny County Dept. Of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir.

1999). As a result, the appeal is meritless, and we dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Case: 07-3827 Document: 0031651641 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/01/2008