Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03315/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3315

___________

MARC ANTWAIN X. RIVERS MUHAMMAD, SR.,

 Appellant

v.

CLEATRICE X. DEMPSEY; ASYIA RIGSBYE; YORRII SASKA HARDING;

LUZERNE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DIVISION, ORPHANS 

COURT; SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; 

SUPREME COURT PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-11-cv-00350)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 29, 2014

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 10, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3315 Document: 003111873460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2015
2

PER CURIAM

Marc Antwain X. Rivers Muhammad, Sr. appeals the District Court’s order 

denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). For the reasons below, we 

will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Muhammad’s claims are well 

known to the parties and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Muhammad filed a 

civil rights complaint alleging several claims arising out of a child custody dispute in 

state court. In July 2013, we summarily affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing 

the complaint. See Muhammad v. Dempsey, 531 F. App’x 216 (3d Cir. 2013). We held, 

in relevant part, that Muhammad’s § 1983 claims were barred by the statute of 

limitations. In June 2014, Muhammad filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The District Court 

denied the motion, and Muhammad filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court's 

denial of a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Danberg, 

656 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 2011). An appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b) relief does 

not bring up the underlying judgment for review. See Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 

434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). A litigant moving under Rule 60(b)(6) must show 

“extraordinary circumstances” to justify reopening a final judgment. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 

545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). Legal error, without more, is not a basis for granting a Rule 

60(b) motion. Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988). We may affirm on any 

basis supported by the record. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011).

Case: 14-3315 Document: 003111873460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2015
3

In his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Muhammad reargued the claims in his complaint. 

His efforts to relitigate the legal issues involved in his District Court proceedings are not 

extraordinary circumstances that would allow for the reopening of his District Court 

proceedings. Muhammad appears to argue that a state court custody order issued in 2013 

makes his claims timely under the continuing violations doctrine. The District Court 

rejected a similar argument based on the continuing violations doctrine when it dismissed 

his complaint, and we rejected that argument on appeal. Muhammad’s re-assertion of the 

doctrine based on a new custody order is without merit and insufficient to justify 

reopening the District Court proceedings. The District Court did not abuse its discretion 

in denying Muhammad’s Rule 60(b) motion.

For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Case: 14-3315 Document: 003111873460 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2015