EMORANDUM AND ORDER

V.

GREG BARTKOWSKI,

Respondent.

Pro se Petitioner, a prisoner confined at New Jersey State Prison, has filed a motion for

leave to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from judgment.

It appearing that:

1. On January 12, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for “Leave to File [a] Motion Before U.S.

District Court, pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)] For Relief From Judgment or Order.” 1 The

Order from which he seeks relief was entered by the late Judge Debevoise on April 16, 2015.

(ECF No. 34.) That Order denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration ofthe Court’s prior

Order, which was entered on February 27, 2015. (ECF Nos. 33-34). The February 27, 2015

Order, and accompanying Opinion, dismissed Petitioner’s Petition as time barred under the one

year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”)

and denied a certificate of appealability. (id. at ECF No. 33, Op. at 17-18; ECF No. 34.)

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 35), which, as noted above,

This case was previously assigned to the late Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise. The matter

was transferred to the undersigned when Petitioner filed the instant motion.
the February 27, 2015 Order denying his habeas petition as time barred and denying a certificateof appealability, the April 16, 2015 Order denying reconsideration ofthe February 27, 2016

Order. (ECF Nos. 53-54.)

3. Rule 60(b) provides that a party may file a motion for relief from a final judgment for the

following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newlydiscovered evidence by which due diligence could not have beendiscovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)

fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the

judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other

reason justifying relief from the operation ofthe judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretionofthe trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of all relevant

circumstances. Pierce Assoc. Inc., v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988). A

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time-and for reasons (1), (2), and (3)

not more than a year after the entry ofthe judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c).

4. Here, it appears that Plaintiff did not need to seek leave of Court to file a motion under

Rule 60(b), and the Court will dismiss the instant motion as unnecessary and moot in light of his

later-filed motions under Rule 60(b). The Court will address the merits of the later-filed Rule

2
pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)] For Relief From Judgment or Order” (ECF No. 52) is

DISMISSED as unnecessary and moot in light of his filing of two subsequent motions for relief

from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the Court will address in due time; and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy ofthis Memorandum and Order to

Petitioner at the address on file.

Madeline Cox Arleo, District Judge

United States District Court

3