Favors-Morrell v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 86

ORDER denying 80 Motion to Vacate Order. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 6/30/2017. (csr)

tUntteb ^tatesi IBiiestirtct Court

for tfie ^oittfiem Biotrtct of ^leorgia
PranOtoick Pibtoton
ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL,

Plaintiff,
CV 200-158

V.

STEVEN MNUCHIN,
the Treasury,

Secretary of

Defendant.

ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL & TONY

L.

MORRELL,

Plaintiffs,
V.

CV 209-58

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL,

Plaintiff,
V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL,
Plaintiff,
A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

CV 211-91

V.

CV 215-24

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

are

set

out

in

the

Court's

See Dkt. No. 121, No. 2:00-CV-158.
Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3)
to

be

set

aside

for

fraud

on

the

court.

allows a

Such

established by clear and convincing misconduct."
Att'y Gen.,

556 F. App'x 838, 840

(11th Cir. 2014)

fraud

judgment
^''must

Gupta v.

be

U.S.

(per curiam).

'"Generally speaking, only the most egregious misconduct, such as

bribery of a

evidence by a

judge or members of a

jury,

or the fabrication of

party in which an attorney is

constitute a fraud on the court."

Rule 60(b)(6)

a final judgment.

Id.

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

such

omitted).
relief,

"unexpected" hardship will result.'"
Airways,
V.

715 F.3d 1290,

Swim-Tech Corp.,

United States v.

then,

whether

1294

Swift & Co.,

to

grant

the

680

611,

628

(11th Cir.

District

appropriate
agreeable
§

2014)

courts

in

to

aid

the

usages

2013)

and

W.

Caribbean

(quoting Griffin

(11th Cir.

1984)

(quoting

(1932))).

requested relief"

is

Arthur v.

left

"Even

"the

739

Thomas,

to

F. 3d

(citations omitted).

"may

of

is,

"extreme"

an

286 U.S. 106, 119

district court's sound discretion."

"[T]hat

Galbert v.

(11th Cir.

722 F.2d 677,

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

Plaintiffs

moved

March 16 and April 5,

question

"has

been

TO VACATE ABE DENIED.

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

US Attorneys

for

the

Southern

Dkt. No. 123 at 3, No. 2:00-CV-158.

argue,

"[did]

not

have

discretion

not

This
to

disqualify [herself]." Id^ at 7. Plaintiffs also allege that I
needed to recuse myself because one of the defendants was an

Assistant U.S. Attorney who represented me in a different,
unrelated lawsuit that was dismissed on immunity grounds. Dkt.
No.

119 at 1.

There was no fraud on the court.

between 2004 and 2007.

I served as U.S. Attorney

Seven of the cases brought by Plaintiffs

had not even been filed by that point.

^

United States v.

Champlin, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1181 (D. Haw. 2005) ( [T]he
United States Attorney . . . would have to rescue [sic] .

herself from cases investigated or prosecuted while .—^—^_s^
was in office . . . ." (emphasis added)).

The other one, 2:00-

CV-158, did not have any filings between 2002 and 2014.

It was

not proceeding in any meaningful way while I was U.S. Attorney,
and I had no involvement in the case during that time.
Nos.

94-95.

Therefore,

observer would

[not]

"'an objective,

fully

S^ Dkt.

informed

entertain significant doubt about

lay
[my]

impartiality,"' so I was under no obligation to recuse myself.
Christo V.

Padgett,

223 F.3d 1324,

1333

(11th Cir.

2000).

Besides, it is much too late to complain that I should have
recused myself when the reason why I supposedly needed to was
known to Plaintiffs long ago.

Serv.,

188 F. App'x 954,

See, e.g., Daniel v. U.S. Marshal

959 (11th Cir.

2006)

(^'Although a literal reading of [28 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

former

held

otherwise,

[Assistant

U.S.

it

would

Attorneys]

be

to

nearly

become

impossible

federal

If
for

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,

there

is

or out-of-court

reasonable

person

to

no

close

information

question

the

relationship,
.

.

.

financial

that would cause

Court's

a

impartiality."

(internal citations omitted)).

As

for

defendants

the
in

fact

No.

that

one

2:15-CV-24

of

the Assistant

represented

me

in

U.S.

Attorney

an

unrelated

matter, ^'[c]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. Murphy,

F.

2003).

Indeed,

their

official

Supp.

when

2d 1256,

federal

1261

judges

(N.D.

are

Ga.

sued

in

'Mn]ormally,
capacity,

government attorney will be assigned to defend them."
V.

Admin.

1992).

Office

of

U.S.

Ct.,

judge has

^'a

litigation
[her]."

personal

in

1264,

which

I

Id.

1267

Tashima
(9th

Cir.

the

only

Recusal is only required if the

rather than an official

United States

1976) .

Wood,

F.2d

a

Not only is this compatible with judicial independence-

it is ^^necessary" to it.

Cal.

967

246

counsel

v.

Zaqari,

had

so this is not a

an

in

question

419

official

reason why I

interest

F.

had

Supp.

represented

494,

interest

in

in the

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

court-dkt.

CV-58,

dkt.

no.

no.

123 in No.

56

in No.

to

vacate

2:00-CV-158,

2:11-CV-91,

[relevant

2:14-CV-143

all claims against me because of judicial immunity).
motions

times

No.

(dismissing

Plaintiffs'

all

Wood,

judicial capacities."); id. at 17

[my]

''at

v.

Moreland],

reasons.

was,

Moreland

to

acting within

I

at

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. 2:00-CV-158 on June 12,

2017,

and in the other cases, 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") .

argue

Dkt.

on

based

evidence
Federal

as

No.

newly

a

Rule

127

basis

at

1-3;

Dkt.

discovered
for

of Civil

127-1.

evidence.

reopening

Procedure

No.

a

case

They

Newly
is

thus

discovered

provided

for

60(b)(2)—and i t must be

in

raised

^^no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or
the date of the proceeding."

Fed.

judgment

of

was

entered

than a year ago.
2:09-CV-58;

in

each

Dkt. No.

Dkt.

No.

16,

86,

No.

R.

Civ.

the

No.

P.

cases

60(c)(1).

at

2:OO-CV-158;

2:11-CV-91;

Dkt.

issue

here

Dkt. No.
No.

Final

53,

more

51, No.

No.

2:15-

CV-24.

Granted,

the

deadline.

But

evidence

Rule

it

argument

is

60(b)(6)

catch-all

forbidden

under

that

to

bring

lacks

a

provision,

the

newly

discovered-

precisely

parties cannot ''circumvent the timing restrictions."
U.S.

Att'v Gen.,

curiam) ;

n.3

556

F.

App'x

see also Sneed v.

(11th Cir.

2011)

838,

842

Pan Am. Hosp.,

(per curiam).

(11th

Cir.

one-year

so

that

Gupta v.
2014)

435 F. 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:OO-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.

This

filings
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; and

•

2:15-CV-24,

dkt.

nos.

67 and 72 are DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2017.

HONi^LISA GCTDBEp WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED

STATES

SOUTHERN

DISTRICT

COURT

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

and