MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court are the defendants’ motions to dismiss the pro se plaintiff’s third amended complaint, in which he claims, as he did in a previous action, Felton v. Loc. Union 804, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, No. 17-CV-2309, that his union breached its duty to represent him fairly at a grievance hearing where the plaintiff challenged the termination of his employment. (Id. 7.) I dismissed the plaintiff’s ninth amended complaint in the previous action and denied his request to file a tenth amended complaint.1 Because this latest action is almost identical to the one I dismissed in 2020, I construe it as a request for vacatur of the 2020 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons that follow, the motion to reconsider is denied, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. BACKGROUND The allegations in the plaintiff’s first, second, and third amended complaints in this case are substantially the same as those he made in Felton I and II. On January 4, 2016, the defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”) fired the plaintiff, a member of Teamsters Local 804, for “taking home package car keys” in violation of UPS rules. (ECF No. 20 2.) The plaintiff claims that this discharge violated Article 7 of the National Master Agreement and Article 12 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement because he was not charged with a “cardinal infraction.” (Id. 4-5.) The plaintiff filed a grievance and proceeded to an arbitration hearing before a six-person panel composed of three union members and three UPS managerial employees. The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that an impartial arbitrator casts the deciding vote when the panel cannot agree on a grievance determination. (Id. 18.) The defendant Local 804 Union represented the plaintiff at the grievance hearing. (Id. 7.) The union representative emailed the plaintiff after the hearing and advised him that the arbitrator denied his grievance. (Id.) The plaintiff filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), claiming that the union breached its duty of fair representation. (Id. 8.) The NLRB agent allegedly “contacted the [u]nion,” and “the union” informed him that the arbitrator cast the deciding vote denying the plaintiff’s grievance. (Id. 9.) The NLRB agent then spoke with the “alleged arbitrator,” who confirmed that he denied the plaintiff’s grievance at the conclusion of the arbitration hearing. (Id. 11.) The plaintiff now seeks to introduce “newly discovered evidence” — portions of an August 18, 2020 deposition in an unrelated civil action in this court, Barrett v. Villalta et al., No. 18-CV-2046. The deponent in that case, Matthew Hoffman, is a UPS manager who was one of the three UPS panel members in the plaintiff’s grievance proceeding. (ECF No. 21-9 at 31.) Mr. Hoffman testified that his signature on the “Joint Submission Form” used in the plaintiff’s arbitration hearing indicated that the plaintiff’s “case was heard, and the Committee denied the grievance.” (Id. at 34-35.) The plaintiff claims that Mr. Hoffman’s testimony demonstrates that the panel in his case denied his grievance because the plaintiff’s form contains Mr. Hoffman’s signature and does not contain a signature from the arbitrator. (Id.
