Court Opinion

ID: 9839295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 19:00:31.200261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.366135
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-1711
                                       __________

                                   MICHAEL DUKES,
                                             Appellant

                                             v.

                        E.M.S.A. HSA STEPHANIE WOOD;
                     MEDICAL PROVIDER RACHEL MEDLOCK

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00857)
                     Magistrate Judge: Honorable Patricia L. Dodge
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                  September 7, 2023

                Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                           (Opinion filed: September 12, 2023)
                                      ___________

                                        OPINION *
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Michael Dukes, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his

motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of

the District Court.

       Dukes, an inmate in state prison, filed a complaint in 2021 against a prison

healthcare administrator and provider. The District Court dismissed Dukes’ complaint

with prejudice as barred by res judicata in February 2022. 1 Dkt. No. 31. In March 2023,

Dukes filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3). Dkt. Nos. 53 &

54. The District Court denied the motion, and Dukes filed a timely motion for

reconsideration. Dkt. Nos. 55 & 56. The District Court denied that motion, and Dukes

filed this timely appeal. Dkt. Nos. 58 & 59.

       We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 We review

the District Court’s denial of Dukes’ motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion.

See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008).

       To prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, Dukes was required to establish, by clear

and convincing evidence, see Brown v. Pa. R.R. Co., 282 F.2d 522, 527 (3d Cir. 1960),

“that the [defendants] engaged in fraud or other misconduct, and that this misconduct

prevented [him] from fully and fairly presenting his case,” Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698

1
 We affirmed on appeal. Dukes v. Wood, et al., No. 22-1669, 2023 WL 314300 (3d Cir.
Jan. 19, 2023).
2
 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
                                             2
F.2d 204, 207 (3d Cir. 1983). As he contended in his Rule 60(b) motion, Dukes asserts

on appeal that he is entitled to relief because defendants made false statements about his

physician’s medical opinion in 2019, which they prevented him from learning about and

refuting until after his appeal from the District Court’s dismissal. C.A. Dkt. No. 11 at 17;

Dkt. No. 53 at 2 & 4; Dkt. No. 57 at 3. Because of the defendants’ fraud, Dukes argues,

his state court case was not a “full and fair opportunity” to assert his rights, so res

judicata did not bar his federal suit. C.A. Dkt. No. 11 at 17. Dukes also argues that,

although his Rule 60(b)(3) motion was filed beyond the rule’s one-year limit, he alleged

“extraordinary circumstances” entitling him to equitable tolling under Rule 60(b)(6). Id.

at 14-18.

       We discern no abuse of discretion by the District Court. As the District Court

correctly explained, Dukes’ Rule 60(b)(3) motion, filed more than a year after the District

Court entered its judgment, was untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Dukes has not

alleged any “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6), see

Budget Blinds, 536 F.3d at 255, and he may not use this rule to circumvent the one-year

limitation on Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), see Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488, 493 (3d Cir. 1975).

       Even if Dukes’ Rule 60(b)(3) motion were timely, his allegations of fraud do not

satisfy the requirements for relief under this rule. As the District Court explained,

regardless of the veracity of defendants’ statements, they were not withheld from Dukes,

and there is no indication that he was unable to argue about them in state court. Dukes

learned of the statements, which appeared in the denial of Dukes’ administrative
                                               3
grievance, in late 2019. Dkt. No. 1-14. He appealed from that decision, and it was

affirmed in March 2020. Dkt. No. 1-15. Dukes filed suit in state court in April 2020, and

the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania extensively addressed his medical care in its

opinion. See Dukes v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., No. 281 MD 2020, 2021 WL 608918, at *2-5

(Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 17, 2021). In his federal suit, Dukes identified the same

statements, arguing that defendants misrepresented his physician’s opinion. Dkt. No. 1 at

12-13. The affidavit from his physician that Dukes offered in support of his Rule

60(b)(3) motion does not demonstrate that Dukes was prevented from fully litigating his

case in state court. See Dkt. No. 57-1.

       We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                            4