Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-24-01767/USCOURTS-ca3-24-01767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Bates
Appellee
Larry Jordan
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-1767

__________

LARRY JORDAN,

Appellant

v.

STEPHEN BATES, SR. PERSONNEL TECHNICIAN

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-16120)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 7, 2024

Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 4, 2024)

___________

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.

Case: 24-1767 Document: 29 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024
2

Larry Jordan appeals pro se from the District Court’s April 16, 2024 decision 

denying his motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the 

reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I.

In 2021, Jordan filed a complaint in the District Court against Cumberland County 

personnel technician Stephen Bates. See ECF 1, 4. Jordan, a former employee with the 

County of Cumberland Juvenile Detention Center, alleged that he was improperly 

removed from a pool of potential employees based on the results of his criminal 

background check. See ECF 1 at 8–10. The District Court dismissed the complaint for 

failure to state a claim, explaining that Jordan had failed to allege sufficient facts to 

explain the nature of the claim, let alone Bates’ involvement in the alleged misconduct. 

See ECF 26 at 4. The District Court granted leave to amend, and Jordan filed an 

amended complaint. See ECF 30, 31. In December 2022, the District Court dismissed 

the amended complaint with prejudice, determining that Jordan had failed to include any 

new allegations. See ECF 33. In March 2023, Jordan filed an untimely appeal, which 

this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF 38.

After his first appeal was dismissed, Jordan moved the District Court for relief 

under Rule 60(b), claiming that he was denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury 

trial. See ECF 40, 41. On April 16, 2024, the District Court denied Jordan’s motion. 

See ECF 43. Jordan then filed this appeal, challenging that denial. See ECF 44.

Case: 24-1767 Document: 29 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2024
3

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Jordan’s notice of appeal 

is timely only as to the District Court’s April 16, 2024 order denying the Rule 60(b) 

motion, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing that order. We generally review an order 

denying a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 

536 F.3d 244, 251 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2008). To the extent that Jordan sought relief under 

Rule 60(b)(4), our review is plenary. Id.

III.

We agree with the District Court’s determination that Jordan failed to set forth any 

grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). Jordan has argued only that his case merited a jury 

trial rather than dismissal for failure to state a claim. This is an argument he could have 

raised via a timely appeal of the District Court’s dismissal order. See Morris v. Horn, 

187 F.3d 333, 343 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that Rule 60(b) may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal); see generally Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 538 (2022) 

(declining to define Rule 60(b)’s “reasonable time” standard but noting that Courts of 

Appeals have used it to deny Rule 60(b) motions alleging errors that could have been 

raised in a timely appeal). And, in any event, the Seventh Amendment argument lacks 

merit. See, e.g., Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624, 631 n.5 (5th 

Cir. 2014). Jordan raised no other grounds for relief in his Rule 60(b) motion, let alone 

grounds that would warrant such relief.

Case: 24-1767 Document: 29 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2024
4

Accordingly, we will affirm.

Case: 24-1767 Document: 29 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2024