NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 19-2570 ___________
ZULKARNAIN KAGALWALLA,
Appellant
v.
JENNIFER DOWNING; RENEE ROBESON; JENNIFER EUGENE; HON. DARLENE PEREKSTA; ALLISON BLAKE; SHING-FU HSUEH; DAVID ADERHOLD; ANTHONY FLERES; STATE OF NJ; WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP; WEST WINDSOR PLAINSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-02071) Chief District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wilson ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 20, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 21, 2020) ___________
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
Zulkarnain Kagalwalla, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) to reopen his case and orders denying his motions for
reconsideration. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
In 2017, Kagalwalla filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
State of New Jersey, West Windsor Township, West Windsor-Plainsboro School District,
and numerous public employees, claiming violations of his rights to free speech and due
process, interference with parental rights, and false arrest. He later filed an amended
complaint. Kagalwalla’s pleadings are unclear. Other documents he submitted reflect
that his action stemmed from a civil complaint filed against him by the New Jersey
Division of Child Protection and Permanency and a criminal case in which he was
ordered to have no contact with various individuals and entities, including defendants to
his lawsuit.
The District Court granted motions to dismiss filed by the School District and
Township defendants and dismissed Kagalwalla’s claims without prejudice. On May 8,
2018, before the District Court ruled on a motion to dismiss by the remaining defendants
and a motion by Kagalwalla to file a second amended complaint, Kagalwalla voluntarily
dismissed his complaint.
Almost a year later, on May 3, 2019, Kagalwalla filed a motion pursuant to
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) asking the District Court to reopen his case
based on alleged fraud and misconduct by West Windsor Township and the county
prosecutor’s office. He stated that he was in jail from January 31, 2018 to May 7, 2018,
on fabricated charges because the Township, school, and prosecutor’s office sought to
force him to withdraw his federal action. He alleged that his attorney told him that the
only plea deal he would be offered was three years in prison, and that a friend was able to
get the Mayor of West Windsor Township to help with his release on the condition that
he withdraw his complaint. He claimed that the defendants forced him to withdraw his
complaint by putting his liberty at stake. Kagalwalla attached a July 26, 2017, letter
written by counsel for the Township to a state court judge in a criminal matter stating that
Kagalwalla had violated a no-contact order by filing a document in his federal action that
served to harass the parties he was directed not to contact. The letter reflects that
Kagalwalla had more than one outstanding criminal case. Counsel asked that as part of
any settlement that Kagalwalla agree to withdraw his federal action.
The District Court denied the motion to reopen on May 21, 2019. It explained that
Kagalwalla had failed to provide any factual support for his allegations, and that his
conclusory allegations of wrongdoing by government officials and other non-parties did
not satisfy his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that an adverse party
engaged in fraud or misconduct.
Kagalwalla filed a motion for reconsideration in which he purported to attest to
3 facts in support of his motion to reopen. He reiterated allegations in that motion, noted
that a defendant had agreed not to testify against him at his sentencing because he had
withdrawn his complaint, and stated that his plea was conditioned on a verbal agreement
to withdraw his complaint. The District Court found no basis to reconsider its ruling and
denied the motion in a text-only order entered on the docket on May 30, 2019.
Kagalwalla filed a second motion for reconsideration and submitted two
documents in support: a May 10, 2019, letter from Township counsel to the District
Court opposing Kagalwalla’s motion to reopen and a separately filed habeas petition, and
a document reflecting text messages between Kagalwalla and the friend who spoke to the
Mayor. In the latter, Kagalwalla’s friend wrote that the “deal” was that he drop his
federal action. Kagalwalla responded that the deal was that the Township and school
work with him “for a decent probation.” Exhibit to 5/31/19 Motion for reconsideration.
The District Court denied the motion on June 6, 2019. It explained that
Kagalwalla’s evidence was not newly discovered and he did not explain why he did not
submit it with his motion to reopen. The District Court also said that, even if it
considered the evidence, Kagalwalla had not provided sufficient factual support for his
allegations, nor had he shown that named defendants were a party to the alleged fraud.
This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Kagalwalla seeks review of
the May 21, 2019, order denying his motion to reopen and the May 30, 2019, and June 6,
4 2019, orders denying reconsideration. In the brief filed by the State of New Jersey and
other parties, Appellees note that Kagalwalla identified only the June 6, 2019, order in his
notice of appeal. We may review all three rulings, however, because the orders denying
reconsideration are connected to the denial of the motion to reopen, an intent to appeal
may be inferred by the fact that Kagalwalla attached to his notice of appeal the orders
denying his motion to reopen and his second motion for reconsideration, and there is no
prejudice to the Appellees as they have all addressed the denials of reopening and
reconsideration in their briefs. See Trzaska v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 865 F.3d 155, 163 (3d
Cir. 2017) (setting forth factors for review of orders not specified in a notice of appeal).1
We review the District Court’s rulings for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v.
White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)(3) motion); Long v. Atlantic City
Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 446-47 (3d Cir. 2012) (motion for reconsideration).
Rule 60(b)(3) provides for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 19-2570 ___________
ZULKARNAIN KAGALWALLA,
Appellant
v.
JENNIFER DOWNING; RENEE ROBESON; JENNIFER EUGENE; HON. DARLENE PEREKSTA; ALLISON BLAKE; SHING-FU HSUEH; DAVID ADERHOLD; ANTHONY FLERES; STATE OF NJ; WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP; WEST WINDSOR PLAINSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-02071) Chief District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wilson ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 20, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 21, 2020) ___________
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
Zulkarnain Kagalwalla, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) to reopen his case and orders denying his motions for
reconsideration. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
In 2017, Kagalwalla filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
State of New Jersey, West Windsor Township, West Windsor-Plainsboro School District,
and numerous public employees, claiming violations of his rights to free speech and due
process, interference with parental rights, and false arrest. He later filed an amended
complaint. Kagalwalla’s pleadings are unclear. Other documents he submitted reflect
that his action stemmed from a civil complaint filed against him by the New Jersey
Division of Child Protection and Permanency and a criminal case in which he was
ordered to have no contact with various individuals and entities, including defendants to
his lawsuit.
The District Court granted motions to dismiss filed by the School District and
Township defendants and dismissed Kagalwalla’s claims without prejudice. On May 8,
2018, before the District Court ruled on a motion to dismiss by the remaining defendants
and a motion by Kagalwalla to file a second amended complaint, Kagalwalla voluntarily
dismissed his complaint.
Almost a year later, on May 3, 2019, Kagalwalla filed a motion pursuant to
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) asking the District Court to reopen his case
based on alleged fraud and misconduct by West Windsor Township and the county
prosecutor’s office. He stated that he was in jail from January 31, 2018 to May 7, 2018,
on fabricated charges because the Township, school, and prosecutor’s office sought to
force him to withdraw his federal action. He alleged that his attorney told him that the
only plea deal he would be offered was three years in prison, and that a friend was able to
get the Mayor of West Windsor Township to help with his release on the condition that
he withdraw his complaint. He claimed that the defendants forced him to withdraw his
complaint by putting his liberty at stake. Kagalwalla attached a July 26, 2017, letter
written by counsel for the Township to a state court judge in a criminal matter stating that
Kagalwalla had violated a no-contact order by filing a document in his federal action that
served to harass the parties he was directed not to contact. The letter reflects that
Kagalwalla had more than one outstanding criminal case. Counsel asked that as part of
any settlement that Kagalwalla agree to withdraw his federal action.
The District Court denied the motion to reopen on May 21, 2019. It explained that
Kagalwalla had failed to provide any factual support for his allegations, and that his
conclusory allegations of wrongdoing by government officials and other non-parties did
not satisfy his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that an adverse party
engaged in fraud or misconduct.
Kagalwalla filed a motion for reconsideration in which he purported to attest to
3 facts in support of his motion to reopen. He reiterated allegations in that motion, noted
that a defendant had agreed not to testify against him at his sentencing because he had
withdrawn his complaint, and stated that his plea was conditioned on a verbal agreement
to withdraw his complaint. The District Court found no basis to reconsider its ruling and
denied the motion in a text-only order entered on the docket on May 30, 2019.
Kagalwalla filed a second motion for reconsideration and submitted two
documents in support: a May 10, 2019, letter from Township counsel to the District
Court opposing Kagalwalla’s motion to reopen and a separately filed habeas petition, and
a document reflecting text messages between Kagalwalla and the friend who spoke to the
Mayor. In the latter, Kagalwalla’s friend wrote that the “deal” was that he drop his
federal action. Kagalwalla responded that the deal was that the Township and school
work with him “for a decent probation.” Exhibit to 5/31/19 Motion for reconsideration.
The District Court denied the motion on June 6, 2019. It explained that
Kagalwalla’s evidence was not newly discovered and he did not explain why he did not
submit it with his motion to reopen. The District Court also said that, even if it
considered the evidence, Kagalwalla had not provided sufficient factual support for his
allegations, nor had he shown that named defendants were a party to the alleged fraud.
This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Kagalwalla seeks review of
the May 21, 2019, order denying his motion to reopen and the May 30, 2019, and June 6,
4 2019, orders denying reconsideration. In the brief filed by the State of New Jersey and
other parties, Appellees note that Kagalwalla identified only the June 6, 2019, order in his
notice of appeal. We may review all three rulings, however, because the orders denying
reconsideration are connected to the denial of the motion to reopen, an intent to appeal
may be inferred by the fact that Kagalwalla attached to his notice of appeal the orders
denying his motion to reopen and his second motion for reconsideration, and there is no
prejudice to the Appellees as they have all addressed the denials of reopening and
reconsideration in their briefs. See Trzaska v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 865 F.3d 155, 163 (3d
Cir. 2017) (setting forth factors for review of orders not specified in a notice of appeal).1
We review the District Court’s rulings for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v.
White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)(3) motion); Long v. Atlantic City
Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 446-47 (3d Cir. 2012) (motion for reconsideration).
Rule 60(b)(3) provides for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
where there is fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(3). The moving party must show that the opposing party engaged in fraud
or other misconduct, and that the conduct prevented the moving party from fully and
fairly presenting his case. Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698 F.2d 204, 207 (3d Cir. 1983). In
order to show fraud or misconduct, the evidence must be clear and convincing. Brown v.
Pa. R.R. Co., 282 F.2d 522, 527 (3d Cir. 1960).
1 Kagalwalla’s notice of appeal is timely as to all three orders under Federal Rules 5 We agree with the District Court that Kagalwalla did not meet his burden of
establishing fraud or misconduct in his Rule 60(b)(3) motion. His allegation that he was
incarcerated in 2018 in order to coerce him to withdraw his lawsuit is unsupported.
Kagalwalla also alleged that the Mayor of West Windsor Township forced him to
withdraw his suit in order to obtain a plea deal. However, the June 26, 2017, letter upon
which he relies reflects that Township’s counsel asked that Kagalwalla agree to withdraw
his action because he had filed a document that the Township believed violated the spirit
of a no-contact order. The letter does not show that the Township engaged in misconduct
then or when he was incarcerated in 2018. Kagalwalla argues on appeal that the District
Court failed to consider this letter, but the letter does not establish that relief was due.
The District Court also did not err in denying Kagalwalla’s motions for
reconsideration because he did not rely on any newly discovered evidence or identify any
manifest error. See Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237,
251-52 (3d Cir. 2010). Moreover, the evidence that Kagalwalla submitted suggests that
he agreed to withdraw the suit in exchange for the Township’s support of a favorable
sentence of probation.
Kagalwalla argues in his brief that the District Court should have obtained his
prison telephone records and transcripts in his criminal case, but it was not the District
Court’s job to do so. He also asserts that the Township’s letter opposing his motion to
of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) and 4(a)(4)(A). 6 reopen, which was e-mailed to the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, was not
docketed. Although this is correct, the letter reflects that it was mailed to Kagalwalla and
he has not shown any prejudice. His argument that the letter acknowledges that his
factual allegations are true is without merit.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.