Eason v. King

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Relief from Judgment or in the Alternative Hazel-Atlas Independant Action in Accordance with Fraud Upon the Court. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 10/24/2017 (dtj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION STEVEN WALTER EASON, #118089 PETITIONER v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-182-KS-MTP STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION [10] FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(3), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HAZEL-ATLAS INDEPENDENT ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH “FRAUD UPON THE COURT” This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion [10] for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, HazelAtlas independent action in accordance with “fraud upon the Court.”1 Petitioner argues “that the State committed fraud upon the court which influenced the Court into ruling in its favor on an application for permission to file a successive habeas.” Pet’r’s Mot. [10] at 1. Having reviewed the record and Petitioner’s Motion [10], the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion [10] because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant Motion. Petitioner states that he filed an application for permission to file a successive habeas on December 6, 2016, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which was assigned cause no. 16-60811. Pet’r’s Mot. [10] at 2. The Fifth Circuit “asked the state, . . ., to respond to the application on Jan. 11, 2017.” Id. The State then filed a response. Id. On January 24, 2017, the Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application. Id. Petitioner has filed a 1 The Court finds Petitioner is referring to United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). In Hazel-Atlas, the Supreme Court found that an exception to the general rule “that judgments should not be disturbed after the term of their entry has expired” existed “under certain circumstances, one of which is after-discovered fraud.” Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 244. number of pleadings with the Fifth Circuit attempting to demonstrate “a procedural violation by the court, (it never allowed the petitioner to object/reply to the states response).” Id. Because Petitioner’s pleadings, including writs, filed in the Fifth Circuit were not acknowledged, Petitioner filed this Motion [10]. Id. Petitioner argues that a fraud was committed by the State in its Response to Petitioner’s application to file a successive habeas petition filed with the Fifth Circuit. See Pet’r’s Mot. [10] at 1-12. As a result of this alleged fraud, the Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application to file a successive habeas petition. Id. Petitioner is requesting that this District Court review the decision of the Fifth Circuit denying Petitioner’s application to file a successive habeas and “find that the State did in fact ‘commit[] fraud upon the court’ purposely and grant relief from the fraudulent judg[]ment.” Id. at 12. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision of the Fifth Circuit or authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2254 motion, see 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A), Petitioner’s Motion [10] will be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion [10] pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), or in the alternative, Hazel-Atlas independent action in accordance with “fraud upon the court,” is denied for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of October, 2017. s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?