Erie v. County of Crawford

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-13-2006
Erie v. Crawford
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3010
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Erie v. Crawford" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1749.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1749
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3010
________________
ANTHONY L. ERIE,
Appellant
v.
COUNTY OF CRAWFORD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
GORDON R. MILLER, JUDGE;
FRANCIS J. SHULTZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
RODGER M. BAUER, ASST. DISTRICT ATTY.;
PAULA C. DIGIACOMO, FIRST ASST. D.A.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00139)
District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 12, 2006
BEFORE: SLOVITER, SMITH and VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: January 13, 2006)
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Anthony Erie appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to reopen.
Erie filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. In his complaint and amended complaint, he alleged constitutional
violations by the district attorneys and judge involved in his conviction for driving under
the influence. The District Court granted appellees’ motions to dismiss on the grounds
that his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and judicial
immunity. Erie filed a motion for reconsideration which the District Court denied. Two
months later, Erie filed a motion to reopen which was denied. Erie then filed a second
motion to reopen which the District Court denied. Erie then filed a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Erie sought relief from the
District Court’s judgment in his second motion to reopen, we will construe the motion as
one requesting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The denial of a Rule
60(b) motion is an appealable order; however, the scope of the appeal does not include
the underlying judgment. Browder v. Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263
n. 7 (1978). Disposition of a motion under Rule 60(b) is within the discretion of the trial
court, and the Court of Appeals may review the ruling only for an abuse of that discretion.
Hodge v. Hodge, 621 F.2d 590, 593 (3rd Cir. 1980).
In his second motion to reopen, Erie alleged that the appellees’ motions to dismiss
were granted because appellees misled the District Court as to the facts of the case. Erie
does not identify any specific facts which were misrepresented or explain how they
2
affected the District Court’s ruling. Moreover, as noted by the District Court, when
evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations of the complaint are taken to
be true. Because Erie did not present any grounds for relief from the judgment, the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
For the above reasons, the District Court’s June 1, 2005 order is affirmed. Erie’s
“Motion for Order for Final judgment” and motion for oral argument are denied.
3