2009 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 3-6-2009 

# Thornt on S a

vage v . Alex B on a vit a col a 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 . 08-1524

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Thornt on S a

vag e v . Alex Bon a

vit a c o l a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1768. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1768NOT 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. 08- 1524

___________ THO RN TON SAV AG E, A ppel l ant

v. A LEX BO N A V I TA CO LA ; LO U I SE M A SCI LLI ; J A N ET FA SY D O W D S; L YNNE AB RA HAM

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 00016) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T h o m as N . O ’N eil l, Jr.

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 2, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O A N D ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 6, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM T hornt on Savage appeal s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i ons forr el i ef f r om the j udgm entent er ed i n h i s c a s e . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.W e d e n ied S a v a g e ’s p e tit io n f o r re h e a rin g e n b a n c . S a v a g e ’s c e rtio ra ri p e tit io n to 1 the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tw as deni ed on J anuary8, 2007. 2 B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e h isto rya n d f a c ts o f th e c a se , w e w ill re c o u n t th e e v e n ts in su m m a ryf a sh io n . In 2 0 0 3 , S a v a g e f iled a p ro se c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . H e a lleg e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b yd e n y in g h im a c c e s s to tr a n s c ri p ts re la tin g to h is c ri m in a l tr ia l. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n s to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t o n th e b a sis of the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. O n Sept ember29, 2004, thi s C our tvaca t ed the or derof di s m i s s al and r emanded t he mat t erforfur therpr ocee di ngs . Savage v. B onavi t acol a, et al. , C . A . N o . 0 4 -15 7 2 (3d C ir . S ep t. 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ). O n rem an d , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s to d ism iss Sa v ag e’s c o n sp ira c yc laim a n d to d ism iss d e f e n d a n t L yn n e A b ra h a m o n th e b a sis o f a b so lu te i m m uni ty . T he def

endant s then fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand r enew ed a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e. Savage f i l ed a r es pons e. B yor derent er ed J une 3, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , concl udi ng t hat S a v a g e ’s c laim s w e re b a rre d b yth e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. S a v a g e a p p e a led f ro m b o th o rde rs. In th e c o n so li d ated ap p ea l, this C o u rtaf firm ed , co n clud ing that S av ag e’s c o mp l a i n twa s f

i l e d b e y o n d th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s . S a v a g e v . Bo n a v i t a c o l a , e ta l . , C. A. N o s. 0 5 -21 6 7 & 0 5 -31 3 3 (3d C ir . M ay1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ). 1 O n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 a n d S e p tem b e r 4 , 2 0 0 7 , S a v a g e f iled m o tio n s p u rsu a n t to R u leT he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or deral s o deni ed a mot i on fi l ed bySavage f orl eave t o fi l e a 2 s uppl ement al R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. B eca us e thi s i s an appe al fr om the pos t - j udgm entor der s and notfr om the J une 3, 3 2005 or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entand, gi ven thatw e al r eadyhave a ffi r m ed the J une 3 , 2 0 0 5 ju d g m e n t in S a v a g e ’s p re v io u s a p p e a l in C .A . N o s. 0 5 -2 1 6 7 & 0 5 -3 1 3 3 , w e w ill notaddr es s Savage’ s ar gum ent s thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s J une 3, 2005 or dergr ant i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s e rro n e o u s u n les s w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d en y ing p o st-

jud g m en t r eli ef. S ee T o rres v . C h ater, 1 2 5 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 3 60( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e forr el i ef f r om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s J une 3, 2005 j udgm ent . D efe ndantL oui s e M as ci l l i fi l ed a r es pons e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef, det erm i ni ng, among ot herthi ngs , thatr el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 1) - ( 3) w as barr ed by the rul e’ s one- y eart i m e l i m i tand thatR ul e 60( b) ( 5) had no appl i cat i on t o the ca s e. T he D istri ct C o u rtalso d eterm ined that reli ef w as n o t w arran ted u n d er R u le 60 (b)(4 ) fo r a “voi d” j udgm entorunderR ul e 60( b) ( 6) for“anyotherr eas on j us t i fy i ng r el i ef. ” Savage 2 then fi l ed a m oti on for r econ si derat i on , w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed. S avag e app eal s. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n hi s br i ef, Savage c hal l enges onl ythe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs r egar di ng R ul e 60( b) ( 4) and R ul e 60( b) ( 6) . W e r evi ew th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f u n d e rRu l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , wh i l e we exerci se pl enaryrevi ew of the den i al of rel i ef un der R ule 60(b)( 4). S ee B ud get B l i nd s, Inc . v . W h it e, 53 6 F . 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 1 an d n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ing P ag e v . S ch w eike r, 7 8 6 F . 2 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 )). 3 R eg ard ing R u le 60 (b)(4 ), S av ag e a sserted in h is m o ti o n s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s det erm i nat i on on the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s ue i s voi d beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l edO n th is p o in t, w e n o te th a t S a v a g e ’s a rg u m e n t re lies o n h is h a v in g in v o k e d e q u itab le 4 to lli n g in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 4 , w h ich w a s d u rin g th e D istric t C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s h e ld b e f o re th is C our t ’ s r emand of t he mat t eri n Savage’ s fi r s tappea l i n C . A . N o. 04- 1572. 4 t o cons i derSavage’ s equi t abl e t ol l i ng ar gum entr ai s ed dur i ng the pr ocee di ngs . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatnothi ng i n thi s ar gum ents ugges t s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entw as voi d, i . e. , a compl et e nul l i tyand w i thoutl egal eff

ect . R ather , Savage’ s ar gum ents i m pl yi s a l egal chal l enge t o the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on thats houl d have be en r ai s ed i n hi s appea l , noti n R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons fil ed af ter his un su cc essf

u l app ea l. S ee P ri d g en v . S h an n o n , 3 8 0 F . 3 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n d e e d , i n a f

f i r mi n g th e Di s tr i c tCo u rt ’ s j u d g me n ti n S a v a g e ’ s a p p e a l i n C. A. N os . 05- 2167 & 05- 3133, w e s peci fi cal l ynot ed thatSavage c oncede d thathe w ai ved c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

h i s e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g a r g u me n t . S a v a g e v . Bo n a v i t a c o l a , e ta l . , C. A. N o s. 0 5 -21 6 7 & 0 5 -31 3 3 , sli p o p . at 3 a n d n . 1 (3d C ir . M ay1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ). W e a re 4 unper s uaded thatSavage’ s new found di s agr eementw i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent and as s ert i ons of “mani fes ti nj us t i ce” w arr ant ed R ul e 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef. See M ool enaa rv. G o v ’ to f V i r g i n I s l a n d s , 8 2 2 F . 2 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 7 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ e x tr a o r d i n a ry” ci rcum st ances are necessaryfor grant i ng R ule 60(b) r el i ef; i neq uit i es or “m anifest i nj us t i ce” al one do notm eetthe s t andar d) . I n s um , Savage’ s w i s h t o r evi ve a w ai ved ar gum entand r el i t i gat e an i s s ue al r eadydeci ded and a ffi r m ed on appe al nei ther i m pl i cat es the val i di tyof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s under l y i ng or dernorcons t i tut es an ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce justi fy ing reli ef. W e d iscern n o erro r i n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s5

d en ial o f re li ef

u n d er R u le 60 (b)(4 ) an d R u le 60 (b)(6 ). 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.