2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-12-2010 

# M oh amed El-H ewie v

. Gov N J P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-2014

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M o h ame d El -H ewie v

. Gov N J " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 450. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/450NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 2014

___________ M OH AM ED F. EL- HEW I E, A ppel l ant v . G O V E R N O R O F S T A T E O F N E W J E R S E Y ; F A IT H S . H O C H B E R G , U .S .D .J .; ATT ORNEY GENERAL OF T HE S TAT E OF NEW J ERS EY; LOUI S E T . LE S TE R, CH I EF S PECI AL PRO SECUTI ON S BUREA U; M ELI SS A T. DU TTON , DEPU TY ATT ORNEY GENERAL ; M ARGARET M . M ONA CO, A. L. J . ; W ALT ER M. BRA SW ELL, A. L. J . ; LAU RA SAN DER S, DI RECTO R A ND CH I EF A. L. J . ; LUC I LLE E . DAVY, CO M M I S S I ONE R O F E DUC AT I ON; RO BE RT R. HI GGI NS , AC T I NG S E CR E T AR Y; M . KAT HL E E N DUNC AN, DI RE CT OR OF BU RE AU OF CONTROVERS I ES AND DI S P UTE S ; AARON R. GRAHA M , BCT S BOARD M E M BE R A ND B E RG E N C OUNT Y S UP E RINT E NDE NT ; DE NNI S M CN E RN E Y, BERG EN C OU NTY EXEC UTI VE; J AM ES M . CA RRO LL, FREEHO LDER CH AI RMAN, DE M AR E S T ; J UL I E O' BR I E N, F RE E HOL DE R V I CE CH AI RWOMAN, RAM S EY; EL I ZABE TH CALABR ASE , F REE HOLDER CHAI RP ERS ON PRO T E M P OR E , WALL I NGT ON; DAVI D L . GANZ , F RE E HOL DE R, F AI R L AWN; B E R N A D E T T E P . M C P H E R S O N , F R E E H O L D E R , R U T H E R F O R D ; T O M A S J. P ADI L L A, F RE E HOL DE R, UP P E R S ADDL E RI VE R; VE RN ON C . WALT ON, F RE E HOL DE R, E NGL E WOOD; BR ADL E Y M . WI L S ON, BO AR D AT T OR NE Y;

W I LLI AM C. SOU KA S, BO AR D A TTOR NEY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 00927 (H o n o rab le M aryL . C o o p er)

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)2 O ct ober6, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , JO R D A N and V A N A S K IE, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober12, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. M ohamed F. E l - H ew i e, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N ew Jerse yd en y ing a “ M o ti o n to R eo p en P lai n ti ff ’s Cl o s e d Ca s e . ” W e wi l l a f f i r m. I n 2006, E l - H ew i e fi l ed a pe t i t i on w i th the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof Educat i on chal l engi ng the non- r enew al of hi s one- y earpr ovi s i onal contr actt o w or k as a t eac herfor the B oar d of Educat i on of the B er gen C ountyV ocat i onal School D i s tr i ct . Fol l ow i ng a s i x- dayhear i ng, an admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( “A L J ”) di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on, concl udi ng thatE l - H ew i e’ s cl ai m s w er e w i thoutm er i t . O n A pr i l 10, 2008, the N ew J er s ey C om m i s s i onerof Educat i on aff i r m ed the di s m i s s al of El - H ew i e’ s cl ai m s . T he N ew Jerse yS u p erior C o u rtaf firm ed the d ec isi o n o f th e C o m m issi o n er, see E l- H ew ie v. B o ard of Educ. , N o. A - 6310- 07T 3, 2009 W L 4981212 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. , D ec. 24, 2 0 0 9 ), a n d th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f N e w J e rs e yd e n ie d E l- H e w ie ’s p e titio n f o r c e rt if ic a tio n . S e e E l- H e w ie , v . B o a rd o f E d u c ., 9 9 2 A .2 d 7 9 2 (N .J . 2 0 1 0 ).3

M eanw hi l e, E l - H ew i e r ai s ed es s ent i al l ythe s ame cl ai m s i n a compl ai ntfi l ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the d e f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s , a n d we a f f i r me d . S e e E l - He wi e v . Be r g e n Co u n ty , C. A. N o . 1 0 - 1 2 8 4 , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 3 7 0 9 7 8 ( 3 d C i r . A u g . 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 ) ; E l - H e w i e v . B e r g e n C o u n t y, C .A . N o . 0 8 -4 9 0 0 , 3 4 8 F e d . A p p x . 7 9 0 (3 d C ir. S e p t. 17 , 2 0 0 9 ). In p a rticu lar , w e h e ld that E l- H ew ie ha d n o p rop ertyinterest i n h is no n -t en u red teac h ing p o sit ion , that h is ba re al l egat i ons abouta cons pi r acyfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m , and thathi s empl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s w er e barr ed bythe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. E l - H ew i e fi l ed anothercompl ai nti n February2009. A tbot t om , hi s al l egat i ons a ro se o u t o f

th e n o n -re n e w a l o f

h is e m p lo ym e n t co n tra c t, alth o u g h h e p rim a rily chal l enged the r es ul t s and pr opr i etyof the pr i oradmi ni s tr at i ve, s t at e, and fe der al p ro c e e d in g s. In a d d iti o n to se v e ra l d e f e n d a n ts n a m e d in h is p re v io u s la w su it, E l-H e w ie b ro u g h t cla im s a g a in st th e D istric t C o u rt ju d g e , v a rio u s c o u n tyf re e h o ld e rs, a n d c e rta in N ew J er s eys t at e off

i ci al s , i ncl udi ng the G overnorand A t t orneyG ener al . H e al l eged that the def endant s “depr i ved [hi m of] hi s s t at e and f eder al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . . . by comm i t t i ng act s of fr aud, negl i gence , conce al m ent , per j ury , i nt ent i onal empl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on, corrupt i on, r epr i s al , del ay , and fa vor i t i s m . ” The D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , hol di ng thatE l - H ew i e coul d notchal l enge the pr i or D i s tr i c tC o u r td e c i s i o n s i n a n e w c o m p l a i n t , th a tth e j u d g e s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o i m m u n i ty, and thatanycl ai m s m i r r or i ng thos e adj udi cat ed i n the pr i ors t at e and f eder al pr ocee di ngsE l - H ew i e has notadvanc ed a pl aus i bl e bas i s forr el i ef unde ranyothers ubs ect i on of 1 R u le 60 (b). 4 w er e barr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne and r es j udi cat a. E l - H ew i e fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed i n A ugus t2009. I n February2010, E l - H ew i e fi l ed a “ M ot i on t o R eopen Pl ai nt i ff’ s C l os ed C as e. ” The D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, s t at i ng thatE l - H ew i e w as “r ai s [i ng] the s ame ar gum ent s thathe r ai s ed pr evi ous l y ” and thatthe “Court ’ s pr evi ous r eas oni ng s t i l l appl i es . ” El - H ew i e appe al ed. T he “M ot i on t o R eopen” appea r s t o be a r eques tforr el i ef f r om j udgm entunder Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 6) . C f. A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 208 1 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( s t at i ng that“w e ar e fr ee t o r echa r act er i ze the mot i on t o amend t o m at ch the s ubs t ance of the r el i ef r eques t ed. ”) . A n appea l fr om an or derdeny i ng a mot i on for r el i ef f r om a j udgm entunderR ul e 60( b) br i ngs up onl ythe corr ectnes s of the or der deny i ng thatm ot i on, notthe under l y i ng or der . See Torr es v. C hat er , 125 F. 3d 166, 167 (3d C i r. 19 97 ). W e revi ew the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of the m oti on t o reope n fo r abuse o f d is c re tio n . S e e B ro w n v . P h ila d e lp h ia H o u s . A u th ., 3 5 0 F .3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e mayaff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm enton anybas i s s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. See T o u rs c h e r v . M c C u llo u g h , 1 8 4 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). E l- H ew ie claim ed that h is case sh o u ld b e re o p en ed b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt f a iled to a p p lyre lev a n t ca se law . In lim ited c irc u m sta n c e s, a n in ter v e n in g c h a n g e in contr ol l i ng l aw can s uppor ta mot i on underR ul e 60( b) ( 6) . See For akerv. C haff i nch, 5015

F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 4 6 n .1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). S ig n if ica n tly , h o w e v e r, all o f

th e c a se s c ited b yE lH ew i e i n hi s “M ot i on t o R eopen” pr e- dat e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng the defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . T her efor e, he coul d have r ai s ed ar gum ent s bas ed on thos e ca s es i n hi s oppos i t i on t o t he mot i ons t o di s m i s s . I n anyevent , “[i ] nt erveni ng devel opm ent s i n t he l aw bythemsel ves r ar el ycons t i tut e the extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s r equi r ed forr el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 6) . . . . ” A gos t i ni v. Fel t on, 521 U . S. 203, 239 ( 1997) . E l - H ew i e has notpoi nt ed t o anyextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s thatw oul d w arr ant a gr antof R ul e 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g E l- H e w ie ’s “ M o tio n to R e o p e n .” F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.