Favors-Morrell v. United States Of America

Filing 62

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)

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.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ANGELA FAVORS-MORRELL,
Plaintiff,
A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

CV 211-91

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