Bierley v. Shimek

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-27-2005
Bierley v. Shimek
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4359
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Bierley v. Shimek" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 333.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/333
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-4359
________________
HARRY L. BIERLEY,
Appellant
v.
JAY SHIMEK, DISTRICT JUDGE;
MARGARET JORDAN, CEO, Office of Code Enforcement
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00326)
District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 12, 2005
Before: Rendell, Ambro and Fuentes, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 27, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Harry Bierley appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for relief from judgment. For the
reasons that follow, we will affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will only briefly revisit them here. In
October 2003, Bierley filed an action against the defendants alleging they violated his
constitutional rights through the issuance of summary offense citations against him for
property maintenance code violations. The District Court granted the defendants’
motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. Bierley later filed a “Motion for Relief
From Judgment Due to Fraud and Perjury By the Court.” The District Court denied the
motion. Bierley appeals.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Bierley’s motion properly
is considered a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.1 We review the District Court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(b) for
abuse of discretion. See Coltec Indus. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 269 (3d Cir. 2002).
Because this is an appeal only from the order denying Rule 60(b) relief, and not from the
underlying order dismissing Bierley’s complaint, we cannot address the merits of
Bierley’s claims unless we conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in
denying Rule 60(b) relief.2 See Torres v. Chater, 125 F.3d 166, 167 (3d Cir. 1997);
1
A motion for relief from judgment may also be brought under Rule 60(a) for
correction of clerical mistakes. Bierley did not allege clerical mistakes as the basis for
his motion.
2
Despite Bierley’s arguments in his brief regarding the merits of his claims, this
appeal cannot be viewed as an appeal of the underlying order dismissing the complaint
because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of entry of that order. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Moreover, Bierley’s motion for relief from judgment was
filed more than ten days after entry of the order dismissing the complaint and thus did not
Horner Equip. Int’l., Inc. v. Seascape Pool Ctr., Inc., 884 F.2d 89, 91-92 n.9 (3d Cir.
1989).
Relief under Rule 60(b) is warranted only under extraordinary circumstances.
Moolenaar v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 (3d Cir. 1987). Upon review
of the record, and without expressing an opinion as to the merits of the Bierley’s
underlying claims, we discern no extraordinary circumstances to warrant Rule 60(b)
relief. Bierley’s motion for relief from judgment, though putatively based on “fraud and
perjury by the Court,” is largely composed of vitriolic commentary on the District Judge
and his analysis of Bierley’s claims. In substance, the motion reasserted arguments
previously presented, considered, and rejected in the proceedings. Disagreement with the
District Court’s rulings, however vehemently presented, does not constitute an
extraordinary circumstance. See Moolenaar, 822 F.2d at 1346 (setting forth examples);
id. at 1347 (“extraordinary” circumstances are necessary for granting Rule 60(b) relief;
inequities or “manifest injustice” alone do not meet the standard). Accordingly, we
conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bierley’s motion
for relief from judgment, and we do not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
We will affirm the District Court’s order denying post-judgment relief. Bierley’s
motion to strike the brief of appellee Margaret Jordan is denied.
toll the period for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).