Reardon v. Hillman, 071919 FED3, 19-1334
| Docket Nº: | 19-1334 |
| Opinion Judge: | PER CURIAM. |
| Party Name: | JOHN E. REARDON; JUDITH A. REARDON; JOHN J. REARDON v. NOEL HILLMAN; JAY SANCHEZ; DESIREE RAMSEY; RYAN MERRIGAN John E. Reardon, Appellant |
| Judge Panel: | Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges |
| Case Date: | July 19, 2019 |
| Court: | United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted on Appellees' Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 18, 2019
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-18-cv-01296) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
OPINION [*]
PER CURIAM.
Pro se appellant John Reardon appeals the District Court's order denying several post-judgment motions. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. We will grant the Government's motion and summarily affirm the District Court's judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
In his complaint, Reardon alleged that District Judge Noel Hillman and three employees of the District of New Jersey's Clerk's Office violated his constitutional rights by refusing to enter default and a default judgment in his favor in two other actions that he litigated in the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to Judge Hillman and without prejudice as to the other defendants. Reardon elected to stand on his complaint and appealed to this Court. We affirmed, concluding that "[t]he District Court correctly concluded that absolute judicial immunity applies in this case insofar as Reardon claims his injuries stem directly from the failure of District Judge Hillman and the Clerk's Office employees to direct the entry of default judgment in his favor." See Reardon v. Hillman, 735 Fed.Appx. 45, 46 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (non-precedential).
Reardon then filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the District Court. He alleged that the Courts had erred in concluding that the defendants were immune from suit and that the District Court had erroneously dismissed his complaint sua sponte. He also filed a motion to amend his complaint and a motion to recuse the District Judge. The District Court denied the motions...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP