Washington v. Wolfenbarger
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion Relief from Judgment & DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY CARL WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,
Civil Case No. 2:08-cv-11341
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
v.
CAROL R. HOWES,
Respondent.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING “PETITIONER’S RULE 60(d)(1) [&]
(3) INDEPENDENT ACTION AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT” AND (2) DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
I. Background
Petitioner Gregory Carl Washington (“Petitioner”) is a Michigan prisoner
serving a life sentence arising from a conviction in 2004. On March 28, 2008,
Petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. After the proceedings were held in abeyance so Petitioner could exhaust
additional claims in the state courts, Petitioner filed an amended petition raising
five grounds in support of his request for habeas relief. In an opinion and order
issued October 21, 2011, this Court held that four of Petitioner’s claims were
procedurally defaulted, that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim
lacked merit and did not provide cause and prejudice for the procedural default,
and that his last ground for relief relating to his sentence did not demonstrate a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right entitling him to relief.
(ECF No. 17.) This Court on October 21, 2011, and the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals on June 6, 2012, denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Presently
before the Court is Petitioner’s “Rule 60(d)(1) [and] (3) Independent Action and
Motion for Relief from Judgment”, dated July 11, 2013 and filed July 15, 2013.
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion and declines to issue
Petitioner a certificate of appealability with respect to this decision.
II. Petitioner’s Motion
In his motion, Petitioner contends that the Court failed to recognize fraud
committed by the State at trial and in response to his habeas petition relevant to his
insanity defense. According to Petitioner, the fraud arose from the prosecutor
allowing the State’s psychiatrist to remain in the courtroom while other doctors
gave their individual expert opinions regarding Petitioner’s mental competence.
Petitioner contends that this Court also failed to recognize that two doctors– one
secured by the State and another by the defense– found Petitioner incompetent.
Petitioner cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d) in support of his motion.
-2-
III. Applicable Law and Analysis
Rule 60(d) grants a court the power to:
(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment,
order, or proceeding;
(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not
personally notified of the action; or
(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d). Relief from a judgment through an independent action under
Rule 60(d)(1) “is appropriate only in cases ‘of unusual and exceptional
circumstances.’ ” Rodriguez v. Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP, 465 F.
App’x 504, 507 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Barrett v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 840 F.2d 1259, 1263 (6th Cir.1987) (internal quotations omitted)). As the
Sixth Circuit has elaborated:
[A]n independent action is “available only to prevent a grave
miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47,
118 S. Ct. 1862 (1998); accord Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657,
32 S. Ct. 687 (1912) (available when enforcement of the judgment is
“manifestly unconscionable”) . . . As other circuits have held, a “grave
miscarriage of justice” is a “stringent” and “demanding” standard.
Gottlieb v. S.E.C., 310 Fed.Appx. 424, 425 (2d Cir.2009); Wise v.
Kastner, 340 Fed.Appx. 957, 959 (5th Cir.2009).
Mitchell v. Rees, 651 F.3d 593, 595 (2011).
Mitchell was a habeas corpus case. The court held that to establish relief
-3-
under Rule 60(d)(1) in that context, the movant “must make a strong showing of
actual innocence.” Id. at 596 (citing Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 557-58,
118 S. Ct. 1489, 1502 (1998) (holding that “avoiding a miscarriage of justice as
defined by our habeas corpus jurisprudence” requires “a strong showing of actual
innocence”). Petitioner fails to make such a showing. Nevertheless, he may be
entitled to relief under Rule 60(d)(3) if he can show a fraud on this Court in the
habeas proceedings.1
Interpreting Rule 60(d)(3), the Sixth Circuit has described “fraud on the
court” as “ ‘egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself.’
” Gen. Medicine, PC v. Horizon/CMS Health Care Corp., 475 F. App’x 65, 71 (6th
Cir. 2012). Examples include “such flagrant abuses as bribing a judge, employing
counsel to exert improper influence on the court, and jury tampering.” Id.
(citations omitted). Elsewhere, the Sixth Circuit provided that,
[f]raud upon the court should . . . embrace only that species of fraud
which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is
a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial
machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of
adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication, and relief should
1
In his motion, Petitioner also contends that there was fraud in the state court
proceedings. Such a claim, however, constitutes a second or successive habeas
petition for which Petitioner must seek permission from the Sixth Circuit to pursue.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Thompkins v. Berghuis, 509 F. App’x 517 (6th Cir.
2013)
-4-
be denied in the absence of such conduct.
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 352-53 (6th Cir.1993) (quoting Moore’s
Federal Practice § 60.33) (quotation marks omitted in Demjanjuk).
Pursuant Sixth Circuit precedent, a showing of fraud on the court requires
clear and convincing evidence of:
“1) conduct on the part of an officer of the court; that 2) is directed to
the judicial machinery itself; 3) is intentionally false, willfully blind to
the truth, or is in reckless disregard of the truth; 4) is a positive
averment or a concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; and
5) deceives the court.”
General Medicine, 475 F. App’x at 71 (quoting Johnson v. Bell, 605 F.3d 333, 339
(6th Cir. 2010) (additional quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted)). As a
result “ ‘[i]n practice . . . even fairly despicable conduct will not qualify as fraud on
the court.’ ” Id. (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.21[4][c], collecting cases
for the proposition that perjury and non-disclosure by a single litigant did not rise
to the level of fraud on the court).
Petitioner cannot make this showing because, at the very least, there is no
evidence of intentional, willful, or reckless misconduct by the assistant attorney
general and this Court was not deceived by the alleged fraud. The only ground for
habeas relief that this Court evaluated on its merits related to Petitioner’s sentence.
The fraud alleged was relevant, if at all, to one of the other grounds asserted by
-5-
Petitioner. This Court found those grounds procedurally defaulted and thus it did
not consider the evidence or arguments presented by the assistant attorney general
regarding the merits of those claims.
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner is entitled to
relief from judgment under Rule 60(d). To the extent Petitioner intended to rely on
subsection (b) of the rule in support of his motion, the Court would find his request
time-barred. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). The Court declines to issue Petitioner a
certificate of appealability with respect to this decision, as jurists of reason could
not disagree with the Court’s ruling. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034 (2003).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner’s “Rule 60(d)(1)(3) Independent Action
and Motion for Relief from Judgment” (ECF No. 23) is DENIED and Petitioner is
denied a certificate of appealability with respect to this decision.
Dated: September 18, 2013
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
Copies to:
Gregory Carl Washington, #517403
Lakeland Correctional Facility
141 First Street
Coldwater, MI 49036
AAG John S. Pallas
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?