Rickey Paul Abram v. USA, et al

Filing 38

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT 36 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion 36 . SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (jre)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12 RICKEY PAUL ABRAM,
13

Plaintiff,

14
v.
15
16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
17
18
19
20
21

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:03-CV-01636
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD ON
THE COURT [36]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Rickey Paul

22 Abram’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Set Aside Judgment for
23 Fraud on the Court (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule
24 of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(d)(3) [36].

Having

25 reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this
26 Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: the
27 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
28 ///
1

1

I. BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 11, 2003

3 against the United States; U.S. Congress; U.S.
4 Department of Justice; the County of Los Angeles,
5 California; the County of Ventura, California; and the
6 State of California (collectively, “Defendants”) [3].
7 In his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert that
8 Defendants failed to investigate complaints of civil
9 rights violations under Title VI of the Civil Rights
10 Act of 1964 occurring at the Chuckawalla Valley State
11 Prison, where Plaintiff was a prisoner.

Compl. 3:15-

12 21, ECF No. 3.
13

On January 14, 2003, nine months after Plaintiff

14 filed his Complaint, this Court dismissed the Action
15 without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve any
16 Defendant.
17 No. 24.

Order Dismissing Pl.’s Compl. 2:21-23, ECF

Plaintiff then filed his Notice of Appeal to

18 the Ninth Circuit on March 11, 2004 [28].

On June 23,

19 2004, the Ninth Circuit ordered Plaintiff to pay the
20 filing fees for his Appeal.
21 Appeal 1, ECF No. 33.

See Mandate Re: Pl.’s

Following Plaintiff’s failure to

22 pay the filing fees, the Ninth Circuit dismissed
23 Plaintiff’s Appeal for failure to prosecute.
24

Id.

Plaintiff filed his Motion on August 28, 2017 [36].

25

II. DISCUSSION

26 A.

Legal Standard

27

Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

28 60(d)(1),(2), and (3) as the basis for his Motion.
2

1 Rule 60(d) states that courts may (1) entertain an
2 independent action to relieve a party from a judgment,
3 order, or proceeding; (2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C.
4 § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified
5 of the action; or (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on
6 the court.

Rule 60 calls for an equitable remedy, and

7 relief is reserved for only those instances where
8 necessary to “prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.”
9 United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998).
10

Rule 60(d)(1) and (2) are not relevant for

11 Plaintiff’s Motion.

Courts have interpreted Rule

12 60(d)(1) as allowing a party to file an entirely new
13 complaint.1

Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., No. C 11-03505

14 CRB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124027, at *7-8 (citing Wood
15 v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981)).

Rule

16 60(d)(2) grants relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to
17 defendants not personally notified in a lien
18 enforcement action.

Inland Concrete Enters. v. Kraft,

19 318 F.R.D. 383, 416 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016).

28

20 U.S.C. § 1655 states that any defendant not notified
21 pursuant to the statute’s requirements may enter his
22 appearance within one year after final judgment, and
23 the court will set aside the judgment.2
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff focuses on “fraud on the court,” even naming his
Motion as such, and he is not seeking to file a new complaint.
2

Plaintiff is the one bringing the motion for fraud on the
court, not Defendants, and this Action is not a lien enforcement
action. Therefore, Rule 60(d)(2) is completely irrelevant to
Plaintiff’s Motion.
3

1

Under Rule 60(d)(3), a court may set aside a

2 judgment based on “fraud on the court.”3

“Fraud on the

3 court” is “fraud which does or attempts to, defile the
4 court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of
5 the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform
6 in the usual manner.”

Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d

7 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1989).

It is necessary to show an

8 unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to
9 improperly influence the court in its decision.

Sierra

10 Pac. Indus., 862 F.3d at 1167 (citing Pumphrey v. K.W.
11 Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995)).
12

Generally, non-disclosure, or perjury by a party or

13 witness, does not alone amount to fraud on the court.
14 In re Levander, 180 F.2d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999).
15 Courts should narrowly read “fraud on the court” to
16 preserve final judgments.

Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &

17 Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2006).
18 B.

Discussion

19

1.

20
21

District Courts Lack Authority to Review
Appellate Decisions

In his Motion, Plaintiff, through Rule 60(d)(3),

22 asks this Court to reconsider the Ninth Circuit’s
23 ruling on his Appeal.

See Mot. 7, ECF No. 36.

24
25
26
27
28

3

Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to set aside a judgment for
“fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct.” Rule 60(b)(3)
motions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(c). Relief based on “fraud on the court” under
Rule 60(d)(3) is not subject to the one-year time limit set by
Rule 60(c). See United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862
F.3d 1157, 1167 (9th. Cir. 2017).
4

1 District Courts do not have authority to review
2 decisions issued by the Court of Appeals.

See Briscoe

3 v. Jarvis, 77 F. Supp. 3d 183, 186-87 (D.D.C.
4 2015)(stating the court did not have authority to
5 review D.C. Circuit orders, regardless of the merit of
6 the claims); Colonna v. United States, No. 2:04-CV-1095
7 TS, 2006 WL 1699593, at *8 (D. Utah, June 13,
8 2006)(stating that the court did not have authority to
9 review the findings of the Tenth Circuit after the
10 petitioner argued the appellate decision was based on
11 the government’s false and misleading statements).
12 Because this Court does not possess the ability to
13 review decisions from the Ninth Circuit, this Court
14 lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s Motion.
15 Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore DENIED.
16
17
18

2.

Plaintiff Has Failed to Provide Any Evidence of
Fraud on the Court

Even assuming Plaintiff correctly brought a motion

19 for fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3), he has
20 failed to provide sufficient evidence of such fraud.
21 In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges, “The Court’s decision
22 was unfairly given due to illegal acts by the
23 Defendants providing The Court with ‘misinformation
24 . . . .’”

Mot. 2.

Plaintiff further alleges the

25 Defendants “committed ‘Fraud upon The Court’ by failing
26 to serve the United States 9[th] Circuit Court [of]
27 Appeals ‘Court Summon’” on Plaintiff.

Id. at 4.

28 Plaintiff’s remaining allegations, while confusing,
5

1 assert claims for “false imprisonment,” “kidnapping,”
2 “torture,” and “fraud” to name a few.4
3

“In determining whether fraud constitutes fraud on

4 the court, the relevant inquiry is not whether
5 fraudulent conduct prejudiced the opposing party, but
6 whether it harmed the integrity of the judicial
7 process.”

United States v. Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415,

8 444 (9th Cir. 2011)(internal quotations omitted).

In

9 addition, the relevant misrepresentations must go to
10 the central issue in the case and must be critical to
11 the outcome of the case.
12

Id. at 452.

It is difficult to understand the “fraud on the

13 court” Plaintiff is alleging in his Motion.

The only

14 alleged misconduct relevant to Plaintiff’s 2003 civil
15 action appears to be that Defendants failed to serve
16 the Ninth Circuit “Court Summon[s]” on Plaintiff.
17 4.

Mot.

However, Plaintiff was the one who appealed this

18 Court’s dismissal of his Complaint to the Ninth
19 Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed his Appeal for

20 failure to pay the filing fee, and therefore,
21 Defendants were under no duty to serve a “Court
22 Summon[s]” on Plaintiff.
23

Further, “fraud on the court” under Rule 60(d)(3)

24 must be an “intentional, material misrepresentation.”
25 Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d at 1168 (internal
26
27
28

4

Plaintiff’s Motion appears to focus on his required sex
offender registration with the State of California, which he
claims amounts to slavery. See Mot. 4-5.
6

1 citations omitted).

Plaintiff has not alleged a single

2 misrepresentation Defendants made in this Action, much
3 less an “intentional” and “material” misrepresentation.
4 While Plaintiff refers to “misinformation” Defendants
5 provided the Court, Plaintiff does not identify this
6 alleged “misinformation.”

Importantly, Defendants were

7 at no point even involved in this Action; the Court
8 dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to serve
9 Defendants.

See Order Dismissing Pl.’s Compl. 2:21-23.

10 Without any involvement in the Action, it is impossible
11 for Defendants to “misinform” the Court.

Because

12 Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of, or
13 even allege, any “fraud on the court,” the Court DENIES
14 Plaintiff’s Motion.
15
16

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES

17 Plaintiff’s Motion [36].
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21 DATED: September 25, 2017
22

s/ RONALD S.W.LEW
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior U.S. District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
7