Tyrone Green v. Secretary John Wetzel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2026
• Docket: 25-2744
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-2744 __________

TYRONE GREEN, Appellant

v.

SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL; DR. REKHA HALLIGAN; PA STROUP; PA CYNDI CHUZI MCDOWELL; COUNSELER SANTOS; PSYCHOLOGIST GALBREATHE; PSYCHOLOGIST ANDERSON; PSYCHIATRIST GODISEN; PSYCHIATRIST INGRID RENBERG; DEPUTY ADAMS; DEPUTY FRANTZ; LT. DUBE; MR. BENNEK; OFFICER CRUM; MRS. DEPLATCHET; SERGEANT RUFF; OFFICER ARNOLD; OFFICER DIRAIMO; OFFICER SISSEM; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS LLC; MENTAL HEALTH OF AMERICA; HEATHER DESHANTZ; SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL CLARK; MRS. SMOCK; MR. SNIDER; DR. MICHAEL J. HERBIK; OFFICER MCCLELLAND; MRS. KUSIAK ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00093) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo (by consent) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 1, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 20, 2026) ___________

OPINION * ___________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Tyrone Green appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for

relief from a final judgment. We will affirm the judgment.

Green filed a civil rights complaint, raising claims arising from his incarceration at

SCI Albion. The District Court, acting through a Magistrate Judge on the parties’ consent

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), denied Green’s motion for sanctions. Later, the District Court

entered summary judgment in favor of several defendants. The case proceeded to trial,

and the jury found in favor of the remaining defendants. The District Court entered its

judgment against Green on August 23, 2023. Green appealed, challenging the District

Court’s denial of his motion for sanctions and entry of summary judgment, and we

affirmed. See Green v. Wetzel, No. 23-2710 (3d Cir. Sep. 6, 2024).

Then, in early 2025, Green moved for relief from the District Court’s judgment

“due to fraud upon the court and [a] void judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4). He

argued that a defense witness misled the District Court into denying his motion for

sanctions. The District Court denied the motion, explaining that Green’s request for relief

under Rule 60(b)(3) was untimely, and that Green was not entitled to relief under Rule

60(b)(4). Green timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We generally review an order

denying a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White,

536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008). To the extent that the District Court denied relief under

Rule 60(b)(4), our review is plenary. See id. n.5.

2 As the District Court correctly explained, Green’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion, which he

filed more than a year after the District Court entered its judgment, was untimely. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Green’s prior appeal did not toll the one-year time limit to file a

motion under Rule 60(b)(3). See Moolenaar v. Gov’t of V.I., 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 n.5 (3d

Cir. 1987); King v. First Am. Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2002) (per

curiam); see also United States v. Williams, 56 F.4th 366, 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2023)

(holding that equitable tolling does not apply to Rule 60(b)(3) motions).

Furthermore, the District Court did not err by denying relief under Rule 60(b)(4).

Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes [a] court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the

judgment is void.’” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010)

(citation omitted). Relief is warranted “only in the rare instance where a judgment is

premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process

that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Green did not

show that either of these rare circumstances was present in this case. 1 His argument that

the District Court’s sanctions ruling was erroneous does not sufficiently establish that the

judgment was void. See id. at 270; see also Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 679 F.2d

336, 337 (3d Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (explaining that a district court cannot alter an

appellate mandate “on the basis of matters included or includable in [a] prior appeal”).

1 Thus, we need not consider whether Green filed his Rule 60(b)(4) motion “within a reasonable time.” See Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Tr. for Vista-Pro Auto., LLC, 607 U.S. ____, 146 S. Ct. 579, 582 (2026).

3 Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. To the extent that

Green seeks other relief on appeal, it is denied.