Favors v. Summers, et al

Filing 121

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 113 Motion to Vacate 88 Order. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/24/2017. (ca)

?&n t^e ?Kmtelt ^totesc IBtsitrict Cottrt
tor
^ontl^em IBisitrtct ot Georgia
Pnttttsiotck IBtlitOtott
ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL,

Plaintiff,
CV 211-91
CV 209-58

V.

CV 200-158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's twenty-

third post-judgment effort to revive her claims, first dismissed
nearly fifteen years ago by Judge Anthony A. Alaimo.
No. 2:00cvl58.

See Case

Her original action, filed in the year 2000,

complained of her July 2, 1999 termination from the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center.

Summary Judgment was granted to

the Defendants and against Plaintiff by Judge Alaimo in April of
2002.

Id., Dkt. No. 85.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

dismissed Plaintiff's appeal fourteen years ago in August 2002.
Favors v. O'Neill, No. 02-13017 (Aug. 13, 2002}.

Seven years later, on May 13, 2009, she filed her second
lawsuit based on the same termination, and the second lawsuit

was dismissed seven years ago on December 16, 2009.
No. 2:09cv58, Dkt. Nos. 1 & 41.

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

See Case

Two years later, on June 6, 2011, she filed her third
lawsuit based on the same termination, and the third lawsuit was

dismissed five years ago on November 30, 2011.^

Case No.

2:llcv91, Dkt. Nos. 1 & 15.

After all of these suits were dismissed and all appeals

lost. Plaintiff began a prolific campaign of post-dismissal

motions seeking to re-open various of her long-dismissed suits
complaining about the termination that occurred at the end of
the last century.

Included in these prior, unsuccessful attempts to reopen
the old cases are:

1. Motion to Change Venue filed in 2014 in Case 2:00cvl58
(Dkt. No. 105)

2. Motion to Reopen Case filed in 2014 in Case No. 2:00cvl58
(Dkt. No. 106)
3. Motion to Vacate All Orders filed in 2014 in Case No.

2:00cvl58 (Dkt. No. 107)
4. Motion for Conference filed in 2014 in Case No. 2:00cvl58

(Dkt. No. 110)
5. Motion for Relief from Order filed in 2010 in Case No.

2:09cv58 (Dkt. No. 46)

^ In addition to these three suits. Plaintiff's husband filed
derivative actions based on the same termination. These, too,
were dismissed. See, e.g., Case No. 2:llcv92, Case No.
2:09cv59.

6. Motion for Equitable Estoppel filed in 2010 in Case No.
2:09cv58 (Dkt. No. 49)

7. Motion for Equitable Tolling filed in 2010 in Case No.
2:09cv58 {Dkt. No. 50)
8. Motion to Vacate filed in 2010 in Case No. 2:09cv58 (Dkt.
No. 52)
9. Motion for Review filed in 2014 in Case No. 2:09cv58 (Dkt
No. 55)

10.

Motion to Change Venue filed in 2014 in Case No.

2:09cv58 (Dkt. No. 59)

11.

Motion to Reopen Case filed in 2014 in Case No.

2:09cv58 (Dkt. No. 60)
12.

Motion for Conference in 2014 in Case No. 2:09cv58

(Dkt. No. 63)
13.

Motion for Recusal in 2011 in Case No. 2:llcv91 (Dkt

No. 17)
14.

Motion for ''New Trial" in 2011 in Case No. 2:llcv91

(Dkt. No. 18)

15.

Motion to Vacate in 2011 in Case No. 2:llcv91 (Dkt.

No. 19)
16.

Motion to Vacate in 2012 in Case No. 2:llcv91 (Dkt.

No. 24)
17.

Motion to Vacate in 2012 in Case No. 2:llcv91 (Dkt.

No. 28)

18.

Motion for Reconsideration in 2012 in Case No.

2:llcv91 (Dkt. No 32)
19.

Petition for Review in 2014 in Case No. 2:llcv91 (Dkt.

No. 34)

20.

Motion to Change Venue in 2014 in Case No. 2:llcv91

(Dkt. No. 39)

21.

Motion to Reopen Case in Case No. 2:llcv91 (Dkt. No.

40)
22.

Motion for Conference in 2014 in Case No. 2:llcv91

(Dkt. No. 43)

In this, her twenty-third attempt to overturn her

dismissal, she presents a letter she purports to have received
from Judge Anthony Alaimo on March 25, 2009.

Plaintiff alleges

that Judge Alaimo was unfair to her and that he wrote her a
letter years ago confessing his extreme bias.

This exhibit,

which Plaintiff alleges was written by Judge Alaimo, states,
will forever be remorseful for my inappropriate inflammatory

reference of you as noted in the Pre-trial conference.

My

personal antipathy towards you impaired by ability to render
fair judgment."

Case No. 2:00cvl58, Dkt. No. 113; Case No.

2:09cv58, Dkt. No. 67; Case No. 2:llcv91, Dkt. Nos. 47 & 48.

Plaintiff offers no explanation for holding the letter for
seven-and-one-half years and twenty-two motions before
submitting it in October of 2016 as a focal point of her present
4

motions.

Even if one were to overlook the letter's

typographical error, grammatical mistake, unusual content and

peculiar timing of presentment, and even if one were to believe
that Judge Alaimo would ever write an ex parte letter to a

litigant about a case confessing extreme bias and unfairness on
his part, this twenty-third attempt at reversing the outcome
would still fail.

Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment or order

on several grounds, including fraud, misrepresentation, and
newly discovered evidence.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3).

Ordinarily, a Rule 60(b) motion must be made within one year of
the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

However, Rule

60(d)(3) allows relief from a final judgment that is more than

one year old if the movant can show ^^fraud on the court."
R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).

■'^Where relief from a judgment is sought due

to fraud on the court,

the fraud must be established by clear

and convincing evidence."

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 482

F. App'x 458, 459 (11th Cir. 2012)
F.2d 281, 283

Fed.

(11th Cir.

1987) ) .

(citing Booker v. Duqqer, 825
''MO]nly the most egregious

misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or
the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is
implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court."

Id.

The

evidence must amount to an ^'^unconscionable plan or scheme'
improperly influence the court's decision."

Id.

to

As noted above, much about the body of the letter is

suspect.

Yet, even if it were shown to be authentic, the letter

cannot serve as clear and convincing evidence that a fraud was

committed upon the Court.

Nor does the letter prove that Judge

Alaimo or any other Court official or attorney participated in
any bribery or fabrication of evidence.

To the contrary. Judge

Alaimo's twenty-two page order granting summary judgment remains
good law.

The legal conclusions remain solid after fifteen

years, multiple appeals, and twenty-three post-judgment motions.
Plaintiff's Motions to Vacate Judgment, Case Nos.

2:00cvl58, Dkt. No. 113, 2:09cv58, Dkt. No. 67, and 2:llcv91,
Dkt. Nos. 47, are DENIED.

These cases remain closed.

SO OBDEBED, this 24th day of January, 2017.

LtSA GODBEY WpOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA