The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY E. HERRARA, :
Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-1530
V. : (JUDGE MANNION)
PA BOARD OF PROBATION :
AND PAROLE, et ai.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
I. Background
Plaintiff, Jeffrey E. Herrera, an inmate confined at the Lackawanna
County Prison, Pennsylvania, filed the above caption civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that he was held in excess of his
maximum release date. (Doc. 1). For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. Id.
By Memorandum and Order dated November 9, 2022, this Court
conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a), granted Plaintiff's application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, finding that Plaintiffs claim
for money damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
(Doc. 12).
On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
this Court’s November 9, 2022 Memorandum and Order, which was denied
by Memorandum and Order dated December 13, 2022, based on the
reasons set forth in this Court's November 9, 2022 Memorandum and Order
and the determination that “even if Plaintiff had challenged the sentence at
issue in a properly filed habeas corpus action, his instant civil rights action,
challenging a decision which changed his maximum release date from March
4, 2019 to February 4, 2020 is untimely.” (Docs. 20, 21).
On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60.’ (Doc. 24). For the reasons that follow, the
Court will deny the Plaintiff's motion.
ll. Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 provides relief from judgment
based on the following:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to file a brief in support of his motion as is
required by M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.5.
-2-
Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(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 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.
“[T]he Rule 60(b)(6) ground for relief from judgment provides for
extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir.
2002) (quoting In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 840 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir.
1988)). A party seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show that without
relief “an extreme and unexpected hardship will result.” Budget Blinds, Inc.
v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff does not indicate his ground for relief under Rule 60, but simply
states that “because of either judicial misconduct or disability discrimination
or blatant error [his] U.S.C. 1983 was dismissed” by the undersigned. (Doc.
os es
24). Plaintiff again argues that his “attack is on a violation of due process that
resulted in [Plaintiff] being held over his maximum term by eighth months”
and that “these incident[s] occurred over the course of 2017-2018-2019,” and
“are part of a criminal/civil conspiracy,” which Plaintiff believes can not be
challenged in a habeas corpus action. (Doc. 24).
Once again, the Court finds no error in its finding that Plaintiff's claim
for money damages is barred by Heck, and that even if the Court addressed
Plaintiff's action as filed, the instant civil rights action is barred by the statute
of limitations. Thus, Plaintiffs motion to reopen will be denied.
lil. Conglusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not
demonstrated any grounds to reopen the above captioned action and his
Rule 60 motion will be denied.
A separate Order shall issue.
United States District Judge
DATE: January 2023
22-1530-03
_4-