Case Information
*1 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 25, 2017) ___________
OPINION [*]
___________
PER CURIAM
*2 Jоseph Aruanno appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which denied his mоtion to reopen and his motions to reconsider. We will vacate the District Court’s orders and remand for further proceedings.
In April of 2015, the District Court awarded Aruanno a default judgment of
$5,000 against Officer Corey Caldwell for use of excessive force in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
suit. We affirmed that judgment on Aruanno’s appeal (Caldwell did not participate in the
appeal). Aruanno v. Caldwell, C.A. No. 15-2173,
In May 2016, Aruanno filed a “Motion to Reinstate/Reopen and/or Motion to Enforce/Compel,” in which he asked the Distriсt Court to compel Caldwell to pay the default judgment. Aruanno stated that he did “not have access to informаtion to place liens on his property or garnish his wages” and that he was “not privy to” information regarding Caldwell’s location. In the alternative, Aruanno asked the District Court to place liens on Caldwell’s property and hold him in contempt.
The District Court concluded that Aruanno had “failed to comply with the State of New Jersey’s procedural requirements for requesting the issuance of a writ of execution,” citing N.J.S.A.§ 2A:17-1 and N.J.R.C. § 4:59-1. It denied relief without prejudice to *3 Aruanno’s “right to refile his request in accordance with the appropriate rules and procedures.” Aruanno thеn filed two motions seeking reconsideration. He alleged that “without counsel or at least a law library I have no way of understanding what you are saying,” dkt. #54, and that “defendant’s [sic] have it so that I cannot review the N.J.S.A., N.J.R.C., etc., you cite, dkt. #55.” He stated that another resident suggested that the order might refer to “service and a sheriff’s office,” dkt. #55, but that he would not knоw which sheriff to contact as he “has no right to Caldwells [sic] address,” Dkt. #54.
The District Court denied relief on the motions, stating that it did nоt overlook “the conditions of [Aruanno’s] confinement that restrict him from having access to legal counsel оr a law library when it denied his Motion to Reopen.” Dkt. #56 at 2. The Court also stated that Aruanno had not shown “extraordinary circumstances,” as he had demonstrated his ability to represent himself in the past and had “shown an ability to adequatеly follow the rules and procedures of this Court.” Id. at 3. The Court stated that any complaints Aruanno had “about acсess to a law library or other legal resources should be addressed to the New Jersey Department of Corrections, not this Court.” Id. court is located.” The New Jersey procedures provide, in part, that “the judgment- creditor shall serve a copy of the fully endorsed writ, personally or by ordinary mail, on the judgment-debtor after a levy on the debtor's property has been made by the sheriff or other officer.” N.J.R.C. 4:59-1. Aruanno is civilly confined at the Special Treatment Unit in New Jersey.
We review the District Court’s denial of Aruanno’s motions pursuant to Rule
60(b) for an abuse of discretion. Sеe Jackson v. Danberg,
2011). Rule 60(b)(6) permits a litigant to move for relief from judgment for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” A litigant moving under Rule 60(b)(6) must show
“extraordinary circumstances” to justify reopening a final judgment. Gonzalez v. Crosby,
Notes
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precеdent.
[1] Under Rule 69(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution,” in “aсcord with the procedure of the state where the
[3] The District Court’s initial denial of Aruanno’s motion to reopen was “without
prejudice to his right to refile his request in accordance with the appropriate rules and
prоcedures.” Dkt. #53. Generally, an order denying relief without prejudice is not a
final, appealable order unless “the plaintiff cannot amend or declares his intention to
stand on [the pleading].” Borelli v. City of Reading,
[4] In Aruanno’s earlier appeal in this case, we affirmed the District Cоurt’s decision
denying appointment of counsel. But Aruanno was able to represent himself at that stage
of the litigation. See Aruanno v. Caldwell,