The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOEL L. BROWN, et al. :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-155
v. : (MANNION, D.J.)
(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)
WAYNE COUNTY :
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.
:
Defendants
:
ORDER
Presently before the court is the plaintiff Noel L. Brown’s Motion to Set
Aside Judgment, (Doc. 95), and Motion to Reinstate Action, (Doc. 97).
By way of relevant background, this court on March 15, 2021 adopted
Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’s report and recommendation, (Doc.
87), to dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. 69), as frivolous with
respect to defendants Wayne County, Wayne County Sheriff’s Department,
Sergeant Patricia Krempasky, Wayne County District Attorney’s Office,
Wayne County Public Defender’s Office, Wayne County Correctional
Facility, Warden Kevin Bishop, and Lieutenant Justin Rivardo. The same
day, this court adopted Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s report and
recommendation, (Doc. 88), that the plaintiff’s claims in his Amended
Complaint, (Doc. 69), be dismissed against defendants the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, Monroe County, the State Correctional Institution
at Camp Hill, Michael Jezercak, Sharon Palmer, PSP Honesdale Barracks,
PSP Swiftwater Barracks, PSP Fern Ridge Barracks, Robert Yeager,
Michael Brown, Thomas O’Brien, Trooper Joseph Diehl, Monroe County, the
Days Inn Tannersville Hotel, Camilo Jacer, and the Brodheadsville Post
Office of Monroe County.
On March 24, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside judgment, (Doc.
95), and a “Declaration” in support of the motion, (Doc. 96). Plaintiff also filed
his Motion to Reinstate Action, (Doc. 97), and brief in support of the motion,
(Doc. 98).
Plaintiff’s motions to set aside judgment and reinstate action seek relief
pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60.1 Under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b), a motion to set aside judgment or reinstate action may be granted
where there is:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
1 The plaintiff also appears to seek reinstatement of his action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1655, a federal lien enforcement statute. He does not indicate
how §1655 is relevant to his motion to reinstate action. The court also does
not find that the statute has bearing on the plaintiff’s motion.
judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that
has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party seeking reinstatement of an action “bears
the burden of proof to establish good cause why the matter should be
reinstated.” See Scott v. Trumark Financial Credit Union, No. 17-2020, 2018
WL 125177, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 12, 2018) (citing Clark v. City of Phila., No.
14-5930, 2016 WL 1449240, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2016); Wyndmoor
Learning Ctr., Inc. v. City of Wilmington, No. 93-4217, 1996 WL 117471, at
*7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 1996)).
Furthermore, Rule 60 “does not confer upon the district courts a
standardless residual of discretionary power to set aside
judgments.” Moolenaar v. Gov. of the Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346
(3d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Rather, it is settled that relief under Rule
60 is “extraordinary and may be granted only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Assoc. of Steel
Haulers, 601 F.2d 1269, 1274 (3d Cir.1979) (citing Mayberry v. Maroney,
529 F.2d 332, 337 (3d Cir. 1976)) (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff’s filings provide no legitimate basis for relief as he has not
stated any coherent basis upon which relief should be granted pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The arguments plaintiff sets forth primarily comprise of
allegations he previously averred in his amended complaint, (Doc. 69 at 8;
Doc. 96 at 1-2), which were thoroughly addressed in Judge Arbuckle’s well-
reasoned report and recommendations (Docs. 87, 88). As plaintiff has failed
to show good cause as to why the matter should be reinstated or a coherent
basis upon which to set aside judgment, the court will deny plaintiff’s Motion
to Reinstate Action, (Doc. 97), and Motion to Set Aside Judgment, (Doc. 95).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) the Clerk of the Court reopen the above-captioned case;
(2) Brown’s motion to set aside judgment, (Doc. 95), is DENIED;
(3) Brown’s motion to reinstate action, (Doc. 97), is DENIED;
(4) the Clerk of the Court close the above-captioned case.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: December 22, 2021
18-155-06