Tyrone Green v. Secretary John E. Wetzel

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
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 of 4 --

3
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 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. To the extent that
Green seeks other relief on appeal, it is denied.

-- 4 of 4 --