2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-10-2010

John Reardon v. Leason

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3280

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"John Reardon v. Leason" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 267.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/267
ALD-024 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 the 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 GUIDANCE CENTER, and the psychiatrist

who attempted to evaluate the plaintiff on 6/21/90; OAKRIDGE 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

(Filed: November 10, 2010 )
2

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM.

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

pursuant to Federal Rule 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 construction 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 action 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 state court lacked jurisdiction over his 

earlier criminal conviction. He also sought permission 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 

 

1Reardon 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 prosecuting 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 review. 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 rendered 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 Educ., Bergenfield, N.J., 575 F.2d 417, 422 (3d 

Cir. 1978).

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

motion was not filed within a reasonable time. Indeed, this Court has stated that “no 

passage of time can render a void judgment valid, and a court may always take 

cognizance of a judgment’s void status” 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 

to 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

Reardon essentially sought an order from the District Court directing the state 

court to void his conviction because the state court allegedly lacked jurisdiction over his 

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

when 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. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Reardon’s motion to supplement the record is 

denied.

 

3 Moreover, because Reardon is effectively asking the District Court to void a state court 

conviction, he is barred from doing so under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Great 

Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d159, 166 (3d Cir. 2010).