Favors-Morrell v. United States Of America, No. 2:2011cv00091 - Document 62 (S.D. Ga. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER denying 56 Motion to Vacate Order for fraud on the Court pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3) and 59 RESPONSE/Motion to Reopen. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 6/30/2017. (ca)
Download PDF
Favors-Morrell v. United States Of America Doc. 62 lilt tllie ?l9ntteb States! IBtsitttct Conrt for tfie ^oittfiem IBiotrict of <l^eorsia Pntttointck Btbtoton ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL, Plaintiff, CV 200-158 V. STEVEN MNUCHIN, the Treasury, Secretary of Defendant. ANGELA L. FAVORS-MORRELL & TONY MORRELL, Plaintiffs, V. CV 209-58 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL, Plaintiff, V. CV 211-91 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL, Plaintiff, A0 72A (Rev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com CV 215-24 V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER In fraud all on four the cases. Court Plaintiffs and to move reopen. Dkt. Plaintiffs' motions will be DENIED, will be DENIED at t h i s vacate Defendant injunction to limit future filings. 158. to No. order moves 118, No. for for an 2:00-CV- and Defendant's motion time. Background The facts of previous order. these cases See Dkt. No. are set out in the Court's 121, No. 2:00-CV-158. Legal Standards Federal Rule of Civil to be set aside for fraud Procedure on the 60(d)(3) court. allows a Such fraud established by clear and convincing misconduct." Att'y Gen., 556 F. App'x 838, ^^Generally speaking, bribery of a evidence by a 840 (11th Cir. 2014) party in which an constitute a fraud on the court." Rule 60(b)(6) a final judgment. jury, be U.S. (per curiam). such as or the fabrication of attorney Id. ^^must Gupta v. only the most egregious misconduct, judge or members of a judgment is implicated, will (citations omitted). is a catch-all provision allowing relief from Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 60(b)(6). The party raising it must show ^'extraordinary circumstances." 545 U.S. movants 524, must 535 show (2005) that (citations 'absent "unexpected" hardship will Airways, F.Sd 1290, V. 715 Swim-Tech Corp., United States v. then, whether 1294 the district court's 611, (11th Cir. 2014) 628 District appropriate agreeable in to aid the usages is, "extreme" an 2013) and 106, requested W. Caribbean (quoting Griffin (11th Cir. 286 U.S. 119 1984) (quoting (1932))). relief" is Arthur v. left "Even "the 739 Thomas, to F.3d (citations omitted). "may of "[T]hat Galbert v. 680 sound discretion." courts relief, (11th Cir. 722 F.2d 677, grant omitted). result.'" Swift & Co., to such Gonzalez v. Crosby, issue their and all writs respective principles of necessary or jurisdictions law." 28 and U.S.C. § 1651(a). Discussion I. PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO VACATE ARE DENIED. Plaintiffs moved March 16 and April 5, question "has been to vacate 2017. made order for fraud on the Court on Plaintiffs claim that the fraud in by the court itself," as this Judge "served as US Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia from 2004 to 2007; the and adjudicated the civil actions filed reference US Attorney and District of Georgia." Judge, Plaintiffs Assistant Dkt. No. argue, US Attorneys 123 at 3, No. "[did] not have for the Southern 2:00-CV-158. discretion not This to disqualify [herself]." needed to recuse Assistant U.S. Id. at 7. myself Plaintiffs also allege that I because Attorney who one of the represented defendants me in a was different, unrelated lawsuit that was dismissed on immunity grounds. No. 119 a t between 2004 and 2007. even Champlin, been 388 F. filed Supp. from cases was in office . CV-158, . I served as U.S. by that 1177, 2d . . point. 1181 . See (D. would have United States Haw. 2005) to rescue ." (emphasis added)). . not proceeding in any meaningful way while I 94-95. observer Therefore, would [not] impartiality,"' so I Christo Besides, V. Padgett, it is much ^^an objective, entertain 223 too F.3d late Serv., 188 ("'Although F. a App'x literal 954, 959 reading . . she 2:00It was See Dkt. informed doubt about lay [my] obligation to recuse myself. 1324, to recused myself when the reason why known to Plaintiffs long ago. fully significant was under no . . was U.S. Attorney, and I had no involvement in the case during that time. Nos. . The other one, did not have any filings between 2002 and 2014. v. ('MTJhe [sic] investigated or prosecuted while . Attorney Seven of the cases brought by Plaintiffs United States Attorney herself Dkt. 1. There was no fraud on the court. had not an 1333 complain I of [28 that I Cir. 2000). should have supposedly needed to was See, e.g., (11th (11th Daniel v. U.S. Marshal Cir. 2006) U.S.C.] (per curiam) § 455 places the duty to recognize the conflict on the judge, this Court has held that a motion to disqualify must be timely." (citations omitted)). The mere fact that disqualify me, No. either. lO-CV-02655, 2010) (^'Any Attorney's WL district Office is once served as U.S. See, 2010 her capacity as a of a I e.g., 3619544, judge who likely to judge as a Attorney does not Ciampi v. at *3 City of Palo Alto, (N.D. previously ^see[ ] Cal. Sept. served previous matter of course.' judge's former acquaintance with a party . in a 13, U.S. colleagues in The mere fact . . through her previous employment does not constitute grounds for recusal. this Court held otherwise, U.S. it would Attorneys] be to nearly become impossible federal If for former [Assistant district judges, for they would be required to recuse themselves from any case in which their former colleagues served as counsel . . . . In this case, interest, or reasonable there is out-of-court person to no close information question the relationship, . . . that Court's financial would cause a impartiality." (internal citations omitted)). As for defendants matter, the in fact No. that one 2:15-CV-24 of the Assistant represented me in U.S. an Attorney unrelated ^Mc]ourts across the country have accepted the propriety of United States Attorney representation of federal judges"—even though members of U.S. Attorney's offices regularly appear before those judges in other proceedings. Bryan v. F. 2003). Indeed, their official Supp. when 2d 1256, federal 1261 judges (N.D. are Ga. sued in Murphy, [n] ormally, capacity, government attorney will be assigned to defend them." V. Admin. 1992). Office of U.S. Ct., has ^'a litigation [her]." Cal. personal in which Id. rather the 1264, 1267 Tashima (9th Cir. I only than an an official interest question in Zaqari, had so this is not a Recusal is only required if the counsel United States v. 1976) . Wood, F.2d a Not only is this compatible with judicial independence- it is '^necessary" to it. judge 967 246 had 419 official reason why I F. Supp. in the represented 494, interest in 506 (N.D. Moreland v. should have recused myself here and it cannot support an allegation of fraud on the court. See Dkt. No. (finding 59 that 13, For these CV-58, judicial capacities."); id. Plaintiffs' dkt. no. motions 123 in No. 56 [relevant 2:14-CV-143 all claims against me because of judicial immunity) . no. times No. (dismissing court-dkt. all Wood, at 17 [my] '^at v. Moreland], reasons. was, Moreland to acting within I at in No. to vacate 2:00-CV-158, 2:11-CV-91, order dkt. for no. and dkt. fraud 80 in No. no. 67 on the 2:09- in No. 2:15-CV-24-are DENIED. II. PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO REOPEN ARE DENIED. Plaintiffs moved to reopen case no. 2017, and in the other cases, 2:00-CV-158 on June 12, their June 20, 2017 reply briefs on the motions reopen." to vacate were partially entitled '^motion to Even assuming all of these to be proper motions, they must be denied. Plaintiffs argue that a congressional committee is now investigating the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ("'FLETC") . Dkt. No. argue on newly based evidence as a 127 basis at 1-3; Dkt. discovered for Federal Rule of Civil No. 127-1. evidence. reopening a case They Newly is thus discovered provided for in Procedure 60(b)(2)—and it must be raised ^^no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." judgment was entered than a year ago. 2:09-CV-58; in Fed. each of R. Civ. the P. cases 60(c) (1). at issue here more Dkt. No. 86, No. 2:00-CV-158; Dkt. No. Dkt. No. 16, No. 2:11-CV-91; Dkt. No. Final 53, 51, No. No. 2:15- CV-24. Granted, the deadline. But evidence argument parties cannot U.S. n.3 it is 60(b)(6) under 556 that F. App'x see also Sneed v. (11th Cir. 2011) catch-all forbidden ^^circumvent the Att'y Gen., curiam); Rule to bring a provision, timing 838, Pan Am. (per curiam). lacks the newly discovered- precisely restrictions." 842 Hosp., (11th Cir. 435 F. one-year so that Gupta v. 2014) App'x 839, (per 841 The investigation is not a basis for reopening these cases. Plaintiffs' reopen. Thus, briefs do not raise any other valid reason to their motions—dkt. no. 127 in No. 2:00-CV-158; dkt. no. 83 in and dkt. no. 72 III. No. 118, 2:09-CV-58; in No. PLAINTIFFS' Defendant Dkt. No. dkt. no. 59 in No. 2:11-CV-91; from Plaintiffs. 2;15-CV-24—are DENIED. FUTURE FILINGS. seeks No. to limit- future 2:00-CV-158. filings This motion is denied at this time. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, • dkt. no. 2:00-CV-158, in case number: dkt. nos. 123 and 127 are DENIED, 118 is DENIED at this time; • 2:09-CV-58, dkt. nos. 80 and 83 are DENIED; • 2:11-CV-91, dkt. nos. 56 and 59 are DENIED; • 2:15-CV-24, dkt. nos. 67 and 72 are DENIED. and SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2017. HONt^LISA GODBEp WOOD, JUDGE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF GEORGIA and