C L D

- 0 0 4 N OT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 2 7 0 3

___________

THOMAS DAVIS,

Appellant

v.

THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY and its agencies;

OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORN EY; OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFE NDER

___ _ ________

________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the W e s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 1 8

- c v

- 0 0 7 9 4 )

Distric t Judge: Hon orable J o y F l o w e r s C o n t i

________________ ____________________

Sub mitted o n A p p e l l e e s ’ M o t i o n s f o r Summary Action

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

October 3, 2019

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and MATEY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion f

iled : October 15, 2019 )

_________

OPINION *

_____ ____

PER CURIAM

T h o m a s D a v i s a p p e a l s a n o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 o f t h e

F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e

. T h e C o u n t y o f A l l e g h e n y a n d t h e o f f i c e s o f t h e

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C our t and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not2

D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y a n d P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ( c o l l e c t i v e l y

, “ A p p e l l e e s ” ) h a v e a l l m o v e d f o r

s u m m a r y a f

f i r m a n c e

. See 3d Cir. L.A .R . 27.4; 3d Cir . I. O.P. 10.6. F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g

r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l g r a n t A p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n s

.

W e p r e v i o u s l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Davis’ s u n d e r l y i n g claims

, r a i s e d i n a p r i o r a c t i o n

,

wer e barred by the two

- year statute of limitation provided i n § 1983 actions

, a n d by Heck

v. Hum phrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

. See D avis v. C o u n ty of Allegheny , 411 F. App’ x

4 47, 44 9

– 50 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (not precedential)

. Davis’s current suit was

b rought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)

, alleging essentially t he same

claims against the same p arties. The D i strict Court held that Davis’ s claims were b arred

by the doctrine of r es j udicata and the two

- year statute of limitation

.

O n a p p e a l

, D a v i s d i d n o t p r e s e n t a n y a r g u m e n t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

h o l d i n g t h a t h i s c l a i m s w e r e b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a

. D e s p i t e D a v i s ’ s

a b a n d o n m e n t o f a d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e o n a p p e a l

, w e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

properly dism issed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judi cata, s i n c e Dav is

s o u g h t to revisit a final judgment on the sam e § 19 8 3 claims against the same Appellees

.

S e e Davis v. C o u n ty of Allegh eny , 748 F. App ’ x 482, 484 n

. 4 (3d Cir. 2019) ( p e r c u r i a m )

( n o t p r e c e d e n t i a l )

. W e e n t e r e d o u r o p i n i o n o n January 2 3

, 2 0 1 9

.

I n J u n e 2 0 1 9

, D a v i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a n d f i l e d a n o t h e r m o t i o n u n d e r

R u l e 6 0 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e

. I n h i s m o t i o n

, D a v i s s t a t e d t h a t h e w a s

s e e k i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 (b) (3) ( fraud, misrepresenta tion

, or mis conduct by an

constit ute bindin g precedent.3

opposing party ) ; ( b ) (4) ( the ju dgment is void ) ; and ( b ) (6) ( any o ther reason that justifies

relief )

. S e e F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 )

, ( 4 )

, ( 6 )

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t D a v i s w a s

e s s e n t i a l l y a s k i n g f

o r r e l i e f f r o m o u r January 2 3 o p i n i o n

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t i t

w a s n o t a b l e t o g r a n t r e l i e f f r o m o u r o p i n i o n a n d n o t e d t h a t D a v i s ’ s p r o p e r c o u r s e f o r

r e l i e f w a s t o p u r s u e a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t

. F u r t h e r

,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t

, i n a n y e v e n t

, D a v i s ’ s v a g u e a n d s p e c u l a t i v e a c c u s a t i o n s f e l l

w e l l s h o r t o f t h e s t a n d a r d f o r s u p p o r t i n g a c l a i m f

o r “ f r a u d o n t h e c o u r t

. ”

We h a v e ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “ We review grants or denials of

rel ief under Rule 60(b), aside from those raised under Rul e 60(b)(4), und er an ab u s e of

discreti on standard. ” Budget Blinds, Inc

. v. White , 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008)

.

Insofar as D a v i s sought relief under Rule 60(b)(4), our review is plenary. See i d

. a t 251

n.5

.

U p o n o u r r e v i e w

, i t i s c l e a r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d D a v i s ’ s R u l e 6 0 ( b )

m o t i o n

. “A request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) cannot be used as a subst itute for an

appeal

. ” Morris v. Horn , 187 F.3d 333, 343 (3d Cir. 1999) (alterati on omitted) (quoting

Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liqu idating Tr

. , 155 F.3d 644, 6 53 (3d Cir. 1 998)) ; see also

United Student Ai d Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010) (“[A] motion

under Rule 60(b)(4) is not a substitute for a timely appeal.”). I n d e e d

, r e g a r d l e s s o f h o w

h e characterized i t

, D a v i s ’ s m o t i o n e s s e n t i a l l y s o u g h t r e l i e f f r o m o u r January 2 3 o p i n i o n

,

w h i c h i s s o m e t h i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t

. S e e Seese v.

Volkswagenwerk, A.G. , 679 F.2d 336, 337 & n

. 1 (3d Ci r. 1982) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ; s e e a l s o4

Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, In c. , 597 F.2d 32, 34 ( 2d Cir. 1979) ( n o t i n g w h e r e a R u l e 6 0 ( b )

m o t i o n w a s f

i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o c o r r e c t a “ m i s t a k e ” a s t o a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s ’

j u d g m e n t

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s w i t h o u t jurisd iction to review

, a l t e r

, o r s e t a s i d e t h e

j u d g m e n t )

. A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d

, D a v i s ’ s p r o p e r r o u t e f o r r e l i e f f r o m o u r

January 2 3 o p i n i o n w a s t o p u r s u e a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e

C o u r t

. S e e Reform Party of Alleghen y Cty. v. Allegheny Cty. Dep’t of Elections , 174

F.3d 305, 312 (3d Cir. 1999) ( e n banc) ( n o t i n g a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n c a n n o t b e u s e d t o

s e c o n d

- g u e s s a d e c i s i o n o r a s a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a n a p p e a l ; r a t h e r a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i i s

p r o p e r ) ; s e e a l s o Eutecti c Corp. , 597 F.2d a t 34 ( “ T he proper course for appellants to seek

review of t h e court of app eals ’ alleged mistake was by writ of certiorari to the Supreme

Court

. ” )

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, we g r a n t A p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n s f o r s u m m a r y a f

f i r m a n c e

, a n d w e w i l l

a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.