Joseph Walter Nobrega v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6105
JOSEPH WALTER NOBREGA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00381-LO-JFA)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 24, 2014
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Nobrega, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 (1976) (per curiam).
Thus, the district court reversibly erred when it refused to
consider Nobrega’s Rule 60(b) motion on the ground that this
court had already considered Nobrega’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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 order, and remand for further consideration of
the Rule 60(b) motion. See Std. Oil, 429 U.S. at 19 (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

-- 3 of 3 --