REARDON v. LEASON, et al, No. 3:1992cv02433 - Document 182 (D.N.J. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 8/3/2012. (eaj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOHN E. REARDON, CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-2433 (MLC) O P I N I O N Plaintiff, v. MR. LEASON, et al., Defendants. THE COURT, by Order and Judgment entered on September 20, 1994, dismissed the Complaint by the plaintiff, John E. Reardon. (Dkt. entry no. 134, 9-20-94 Order & Judg.) The Clerk of the Court accordingly designated the action as closed on September 21, 1994. (See unnumbered dkt. entry immediately following dkt. entry no. 134.) REARDON attempted to vacate the 9-20-94 Order & Judgment, without success. (See dkt. entry no. 136, Mot. to Vacate; dkt. entry no. 140, 3-1-95 Order (denying Mot. to Vacate).) He thereafter filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ( Third Circuit ). no. 141, 3-24-95 Not. of First Appeal.) (See dkt. entry The Third Circuit dismissed the First Appeal as untimely and summarily affirmed the 9-20-94 Order & Judgment. (See dkt. entry no. 143, Judg. of USCA.) REARDON, nearly fifteen years later, filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ( Rule ) 60(b)(4), seeking an Order relieving him from the 9-20-94 Order & Judgment. no. 144, 6-3-10 Mot.) (Dkt. entry The Court, upon consideration of the 6-3-10 Motion, denied it as untimely pursuant to Rule 60(c). entry no. 157, 7-1-10 Order). (See dkt. Cf. Mikkilineni v. Gibson-Thomas Eng g Co., 379 Fed.Appx. 256, 258-59 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that Rule 60 motion made five years after the final order at issue was untimely). Reardon appealed to the Third Circuit and the Third Circuit, in a per curiam Opinion, affirmed the 7-1-10 Order. See Reardon v. Leason, 408 Fed.Appx. 551, 552-53 (3d Cir. 2010). Reardon filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. See Reardon v. Leason, 132 S.Ct. 102 (2011). REARDON subsequently filed three more motions to set aside the prior decisions of the Court. (See dkt. entry no. 161, 5-9-11 Mot; dkt. entry no. 169, 6-7-11 Mot.; dkt. entry no. 171, 8-2-11 Mot.) The Court interpreted each Motion as seeking relief under Rule 60 or, in the alternative, seeking reconsideration. (See dkt. entry no. 168, 5-31-11 Order; dkt. entry no. 170, 6-8-11 Order; dkt. entry no. 172, 9-7-11 Order). The Court denied each motion, insofar as each motion sought relief under Rule 60, as untimely. (See 5-31-11 Order at 1-3; 6-8-11 Order at 1; 9-7-11 2 Order at 1-2.) The Court also denied each motion, insofar as each motion sought reconsideration of the prior decisions of the Court, for failing to satisfy the burden carried by any movant who seeks reconsideration. (See, e.g., 5-31-11 Order at 3-5.) REARDON appealed from the 9-7-11 Order to the Third Circuit. See Reardon v. Leason, 465 Fed.Appx. 208, 209 (3d Cir. 2012). The Third Circuit, in a per curiam Opinion, affirmed the 9-7-11 Order. See id. at 210. Reardon filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. See Reardon v. Leason, 132 S.Ct. 2442 (2012). REARDON now moves to set aside the dismissal Orders of this Court pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). entry no. 181, First 7-20-12 Mot.) (See dkt. The Court concludes, upon consideration of the First 7-20-12 Mot., that Reardon is not entitled to relief. Motions filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) must be made within a year after the entry of the judgment or order at issue, and motions filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(b)(6) must be filed within a reasonable time . 60(c)(1). Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court, for good cause appearing, will thus enter an Order denying the Motion. REARDON separately moves for recusal of the undersigned, alleging that the Court has issued deliberate, intentional, wilful and knowing contrary rulings citing improper case law which 3 deprived Mr. Reardon of a fair and impartial hearing and Tribunal. (See dkt. entry no. 180, Second 7-20-12 Mot.; dkt. entry no. 181-1, Reardon Br. at 5.) Reardon also alleges that the Court has deprived [him] of . . . the right to be meaningfully heard, to access . . . the courts and to due process . . . on all issues presented to the court. (Id.) THE COURT has, in stark contrast to Reardon s allegations and as set forth above, considered each of Reardon s six motions to vacate or otherwise set aside the 9-20-94 Order & Judgment. The Court, when considering the merits of such motions, has considered Reardon s arguments and simply found them unavailing. The Court has otherwise, when denying those motions as untimely, explained the reasons for its conclusions. In so doing, the Court has not deprived Reardon either of due process, access to the court, or the opportunity to be meaningfully heard. those motions have been affirmed. Indeed, the dispositions of The Court will thus deny the Second 7-20-12 Motion. s/ Mary L. Cooper . MARY L. COOPER United States District Judge Date: August 3, 2012 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
