William F. Kaetz v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, et al.

W.D. Pennsylvania

William F. Kaetz v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, et al.

DecidedMarch 24, 2026

Docket2:21-cv-00062

StatusUnknown

This text of William F. Kaetz v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, et al. (William F. Kaetz v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William F. Kaetz v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, et al., (W.D. Pa. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM F. KAETZ, ) ) ) 2:21-CV-62 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNKNOWN U.S. MARSHALS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This pro se civil-rights case was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. On February 7, 2022, the Court dismissed Mr. Kaetz’s case with prejudice and Mr. Kaetz’s case was closed. ECF 41. On September 9, 2022, the Third Circuit affirmed this Court’s order. ECF 45. Now, over three years after the conclusion of his case, Mr. Kaetz has moved for the Court to set aside its prior order (ECF 41) and to reopen his case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3). ECF 46. Judge Dodge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the Court should deny Mr. Kaetz’s motion. ECF 48. After reviewing Mr. Kaetz’s objections (ECF 49) de novo, the Court adopts Judge Dodge’s R&R in full and denies Mr. Kaetz’s motion. Mr. Kaetz’s motion for relief fails under both Rule 60(b)(3) and Rule 60(d)(3). Mr. Kaetz’s motion under Rule 60(b)(3) is time-barred. Rule 60(c)(1) requires that the motion be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.” It’s too late for Mr. Kaetz to file a Rule 60(b)(3) motion—it’s been well-over a year. As for Mr. Kaetz’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion, Mr. Kaetz would have to establish by clear and convincing evidence “an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.” Hatchigian v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Loc. 98 Health & Welfare Fund, 610 F. App’x 142, 143 (3d Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Mr. Kaetz’s broad allegations, ranging from “fraud in student aid” to the “dismantling [of] the U.S. Department of Education” do not clearly establish fraud on the Court under Rule 60(d)(3). See ECF 49 at 1. *************** AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED that Judge Dodge’s R&R (ECF 48) is ADOPTED and Mr. Kaetz’s motion (ECF 46) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan United States District Judge

cc: William Kaetz 437 Abbott Rd Paramus, NJ 07652

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM F. KAETZ, ) ) ) 2:21-CV-62 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNKNOWN U.S. MARSHALS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This pro se civil-rights case was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. On February 7, 2022, the Court dismissed Mr. Kaetz’s case with prejudice and Mr. Kaetz’s case was closed. ECF 41. On September 9, 2022, the Third Circuit affirmed this Court’s order. ECF 45. Now, over three years after the conclusion of his case, Mr. Kaetz has moved for the Court to set aside its prior order (ECF 41) and to reopen his case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3). ECF 46. Judge Dodge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the Court should deny Mr. Kaetz’s motion. ECF 48. After reviewing Mr. Kaetz’s objections (ECF 49) de novo, the Court adopts Judge Dodge’s R&R in full and denies Mr. Kaetz’s motion. Mr. Kaetz’s motion for relief fails under both Rule 60(b)(3) and Rule 60(d)(3). Mr. Kaetz’s motion under Rule 60(b)(3) is time-barred. Rule 60(c)(1) requires that the motion be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.” It’s too late for Mr. Kaetz to file a Rule 60(b)(3) motion—it’s been well-over a year. As for Mr. Kaetz’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion, Mr. Kaetz would have to establish by clear and convincing evidence “an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.” Hatchigian v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Loc. 98 Health & Welfare Fund, 610 F. App’x 142, 143 (3d Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Mr. Kaetz’s broad allegations, ranging from “fraud in student aid” to the “dismantling [of] the U.S. Department of Education” do not clearly establish fraud on the Court under Rule 60(d)(3). See ECF 49 at 1. *************** AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED that Judge Dodge’s R&R (ECF 48) is ADOPTED and Mr. Kaetz’s motion (ECF 46) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan United States District Judge

cc: William Kaetz 437 Abbott Rd Paramus, NJ 07652

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

William F. Kaetz v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-f-kaetz-v-unknown-us-marshals-et-al-pawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack