George Johnson, Jr. v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
690 F. App'x 804
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- George Johnson, Jr., pro se, sued the Philadelphia Housing Authority and its Executive Director under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an administrative housing proceeding, alleging fraud and related procedural harms.
- The District Court granted IFP status but sua sponte dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine; no defendant was required to appear or answer after dismissal.
- Johnson moved to add HUD and filed post-judgment motions for reconsideration; the District Court denied relief and this Court previously affirmed.
- Five years after entry of judgment, Johnson filed a Rule 60(b) motion alleging the judgment was void because defendants colluded with a docket clerk (fraud), seeking relief under Rules 60(b)(3), 60(b)(4), and 60(b)(6).
- The District Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely and meritless; Johnson appealed and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 60(b)(3) fraud claim | Johnson: judgment void for fraud; collusion occurred between defendants and clerk | Defendants: motion filed >1 year after judgment; untimely under Rule 60(c)(1) | Court: untimely; Rule 60(b)(3) requires ≤1 year — denial affirmed |
| Rule 60(b)(6) catch‑all relief | Johnson: equitable relief warranted despite delay | Defendants: Johnson knew facts in 2011; not filed within reasonable time | Court: not within reasonable time; denial affirmed |
| Merits of fraud/conspiracy allegation | Johnson: clerk’s failure to serve and an unsigned order show collusion | Defendants: no evidence of collusion; order was electronically signed; court found substantive flaw in complaint | Court: allegations unsupported by evidence; motion meritless |
| Rule 60(b)(4) — judgment voidness | Johnson: judgment void because defendants defaulted in state and federal proceedings | Defendants: sua sponte dismissal meant no appearance required; state-judgment defects don’t void federal dismissal | Court: District Court’s judgment not void on these grounds; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) appeals)
- Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
- Moolenaar v. Gov’t of the V.I., 822 F.2d 1342 (3d Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be filed within a reasonable time)
- Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2004) (post‑judgment Rule 60 motion does not revive right to appeal unless timely and tolling)