Travis Gower v. Daniel Clifford

── Travis Gower v. Daniel Clifford ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2631 __________ TRAVIS GOWER, Appellant v. JUDGE DANIEL CLIFFORD; MONTGOMERY COUNTY PA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-02262) District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sánchez ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 20, 2026 Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed May 27, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Travis Gower appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen his civil action that was dismissed with prejudice. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. In April 2025, Gower filed a complaint in the District Court against Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Daniel Clifford and Montgomery County.1 He alleged that the defendants conspired to violate his due process rights. In a memorandum and separate order entered June 13, 2025, the District Court granted Gower’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and screened and dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The District Court determined that the complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it presented no factual allegations. Alternatively, the District Court liberally construed the complaint as alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and determined that the claims against Judge Clifford were barred by judicial immunity and the claims against Montgomery County, construed as claims against the Montgomery Court of Common Pleas, were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. On July 17, 2025, Gower filed a “Motion to Reopen Case” pursuant to Rule 60(b). ECF No. 14. He claimed to have “new evidence and extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from the judgment. Gower maintained that his new evidence of judicial misconduct and harassment demonstrates “a likelihood of success” on his § 1983 claims. 1 The complaint was transferred from the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it was initially filed. See M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 4:25-cv-00580, ECF No. 1. It appears from the filings that, at that time, Judge Clifford was presiding over custody hearings between Gower and his ex-wife. 2 Id. at 7. Gower also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to “enjoin Judge Clifford from further judicial actions in these cases.” Id. at 1-2. Finally, Gower requested to amend his complaint to include his new evidence. By order entered August 14, 2025, the District Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion because it did not “cure the defects that led to the dismissal of the complaint or offer cognizable grounds for relief within the Court’s jurisdiction to grant.” ECF No. 15. Gower timely appealed from that order.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of Gower’s Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.