Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle

Fourth Circuit

Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle

576 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2014

Docket14-6105

StatusUnpublished

This text of 576 F. App'x 224 (Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle, 576 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Nobrega appeals the district court’s order denying for lack of jurisdiction his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We vacate the court’s order and remand for further consideration of the motion.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the district court may, upon motion, grant a party relief from a final judgment for certain reasons, including: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; ... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). It is well settled that a district court may, without leave from the appellate court, entertain a Rule 60(b) motion that was filed within a reasonable amount of time after the district court entered its judgment, even if the appellate court has already decided the appeal of that judgment. Std. Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 17-19, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976) (per curiam). Thus, the district court reversibly erred when it refused to consider No-brega’s Rule 60(b) motion on the ground that this court had already considered No-brega’s appeal of the underlying judgment. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 204 (4th Cir.2003) (“District court decisions granting or denying Rule 60(b) relief are reviewed for abuse of discretion, although the exercise of discretion cannot be permitted to stand if we find it rests upon an error of law.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s or *225 der, and remand for further consideration of the Rule 60(b) motion. See Std. Oil, 429 U.S. at 19, 97 S.Ct. 31 (stating that “the trial court is in a much better position to pass upon the issues presented in a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We express no opinion as to the possible merits of Nobrega’s Rule 60(b) motion. We deny Nobrega’s motion to compel the production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Nobrega appeals the district court’s order denying for lack of jurisdiction his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We vacate the court’s order and remand for further consideration of the motion.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the district court may, upon motion, grant a party relief from a final judgment for certain reasons, including: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; ... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). It is well settled that a district court may, without leave from the appellate court, entertain a Rule 60(b) motion that was filed within a reasonable amount of time after the district court entered its judgment, even if the appellate court has already decided the appeal of that judgment. Std. Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 17-19, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976) (per curiam). Thus, the district court reversibly erred when it refused to consider No-brega’s Rule 60(b) motion on the ground that this court had already considered No-brega’s appeal of the underlying judgment. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 204 (4th Cir.2003) (“District court decisions granting or denying Rule 60(b) relief are reviewed for abuse of discretion, although the exercise of discretion cannot be permitted to stand if we find it rests upon an error of law.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s or *225 der, and remand for further consideration of the Rule 60(b) motion. See Std. Oil, 429 U.S. at 19, 97 S.Ct. 31 (stating that “the trial court is in a much better position to pass upon the issues presented in a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We express no opinion as to the possible merits of Nobrega’s Rule 60(b) motion. We deny Nobrega’s motion to compel the production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-nobrega-v-george-hinkle-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack