2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-10-2010 

# J ohn R e a r don v

. Le a son

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 10-3280

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" J o hn R e a r don v

. L e as on " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 267. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/267ALD

- 024 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 10

- 3280

___________
JOHN E. REARDON
,

Appellant

v.

MR. LEASON; MR. PFIEFFER; MR. SIMON; MR. DOUGHERTY; MR. MULLER; MR. DIANO; MR. ROMANO; MR. MONDELLI; MR. B. DAWSON; MR. J. FARMER; MR. K. WALSHE; MR. M. KEATING; MR. W. SIMON; MR. A. ROSSETTI; MISS C. CAPLAN; MR. P. PORRECCA; MR. D. BIGLEY; MR. S. NATAL; MR. I. STEINBERG; MR. J. GREENE; JOHN DOE/JANE, criminal and civil docket clerks of t he Camden County Superior Court; JOHN DOE, Internal Affairs Officer for the Sheriff’ s Office at the Camden County Jail ; OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL; the admissions staff, the emergency room staff, and the psychiatric crisis center staff; CAMDEN COUNTY GU IDANCE CENTER, and the psychiatrist who attempted to evaluate the plaintiff on 6/21/90; OAKRIDG E TERRACE APTS. owners and the “John Doe” manager of said apartments and others

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 92

- cv

- 02433 ) District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6(a)

October 28, 2010 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

( F iled : November 10, 2010 )2 _________
OPINION OF THE COURT

_________
PER CURIAM

.
John E. Reardon appeals the order of the District Court denying his motion

pursuant t o Federal Rul e of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)

. We will summarily affirm. See

I.O.P. 10.6.

In 1990, Reardon was arrested , tried and convicted in New Jersey state court after

police found bomb constructi on materials at his residence. In 1992, Reardon filed in the

District Court a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prosecutors,

judges, police officers and others alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of various

constitutional and statutory rights. In 1994, the District Court dismissed the a ction for

failure to prosecute. 1

In June 2010, Reardon filed in the District Court a Rule 60(b)(4) motion requesting

that the Court issue an order declaring that the s tate court lacked jurisdiction over his

earlier criminal conviction. He also sought per mission to reinstate the § 1983 action that

the District Court previously dismissed for failure to prosecute. Reardon argued that as a

result of the inappropriate and/or fraudulent actions of many of the defendants named in

1 Reardon appealed the District Court’s determination to this Court, but the appeal was untimely filed and we dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Reardon v. Leason
, No. 95

- 5219 ( order entered on June 9, 1995).3

his earlier § 1983 action, the State of New Jersey was mislead into prosecutin g him and

securing a conviction and his judgment was therefore void.

We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An order

denying a Rule 60(b) (4) motion is subject to plenary re view. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v.

White , 536 F.3d 244, 251 and n.5 (3d Cir. 2008) ( citing Page v. Schweiker
, 786 F. 2d

150, 152 ( 3d Cir. 1986)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (4) provides for relief when a judgment is

void. A judgment may be void if the court that rende red it lacked jurisdiction over the

subject matter or the parties, or entered a decree which was not within the powers granted

to it by law. See Marshall v. Board of E d uc ., Bergenfield, N.J. , 575 F.2d 417, 4 22 (3d

Cir. 1978).

Reardon argues that the Dist rict Court erred in determining that his Rule 60(b)(4)

motion was not filed within a r easonable time. Inde ed, this Court has stated that “ no
passage of time can render a void judgment valid, and a court may always take

cogniza nce of a judgment’ s void stat us” whenever a Rule 60(b)(4) motion is brought.

United States v. One Toshiba Color Television , 213 F.3d 147 , 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (en

banc). Nevertheless, we conclude that Reardon has not demonstrated that he is entitled

t o relief under Rule 60(b)(4). 2

2 We may affirm a result reached by the District Court for any reason as long as the record supports the judgment. See Guthrie v. Lady JanColleries, Inc. , 722 F.2d 1141, 1145 n.1 (3d Cir. 1983).4

Re ardon essentially sought an order from the District Court directing the state

court to void his conviction because the state court allegedly lack ed jurisdiction over his

case. However, as noted above
, Rule 60(b)(4) provides for relief from judgment only

w hen the court that rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or

the parties. Marshall
, 575 F.2d at 422. The District Court did not enter judgment in

Reardon’s criminal case

. 3 To the extent that Reardon also sought leave from the District

Court to reinstate his previously dismissed § 1983 complaint, such relief is not

contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

As Reardon ’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

See Third Cir. LA R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Reardon’s motion to supplement the record is

denied.

3 Moreover, because Reard on is effectively asking the District Court to void a state court conviction, he is barred from doing so under the Rooker

- Feld man doctrine. See Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP , 615 F.3d159 , 166 (3d Cir. 2010).