Stuart-Holt v. USA

Filing 73

ORDER denying 72 Motion for Void Judgment. Because Stuart-Holt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability of this order. So Ordered by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Zakee Stuart-Holt
v.

Civil No. 17-cv-748-LM
Opinion No. 2021 DNH 150 P

United States of America
ORDER
Petitioner Stuart-Holt moves to void the judgment against him pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) (doc. no. 72). In support, Stuart-Holt
asserts that “the court never addressed the ‘validity’ of petitioner’s plea
agreement.” As a result, Stuart-Holt argues, the court committed “fraud on the
court” when, in its Order dated November 8, 2018 (doc. no. 20 at 14 n. 9), it stated
that “[i]n light of Stuart-Holt’s pro se status, the court will address his challenges to
the plea agreement in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”
Stuart-Holt’s motion is patently frivolous. As petitioner has already been
advised, “fraud on the court is limited to fraud that seriously affects the integrity of
the normal process of adjudication, defiles the court itself, and prevents the judicial
machinery from performing its usual function—for example, bribery of a judge or
jury tampering.” Torres v. Bella Vista Hosp., Inc., 914 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2019)
(citations, internal modifications, and quotation marks omitted); see also Roger
Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427 F.3d 129, 133 (1st Cir. 2005) (stating that
fraud on the court “refers to an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with
the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter” and is marked by
“the most egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself”)

(citations and quotation marks omitted); Estes v. ECMC Grp., Inc., No. 19-cv-822LM, 2021 WL 50076, at *1 (D.N.H. Jan. 6, 2021) (observing that “the type of
conduct that would qualify as fraud on the court must be something on the order of
bribing a judge”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Stuart-Holt’s assertion of
fraud on the court is incoherent in that the nature of the fraud purportedly at issue
cannot be determined from his motion. In other words, it is unclear how the court’s
liberal construction of Stuart-Holt’s pleadings to place them in the light most likely
to be cognizable meets the above definition of “fraud on the court.” See, e.g., Ahmed
v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997) (directing district courts to liberally
construe filings and pleadings by pro se parties so as to “intuit the correct cause of
action” based on the facts and theories alleged).
Moreover, this is not Stuart-Holt’s first frivolous motion. A brief summary of
the post-conviction litigation in this case is in order. In 2016, Stuart-Holt pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
controlled substances (heroin and fentanyl), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841, and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. This court
sentenced him to serve 210 months in prison. On November 29, 2017, Stuart-Holt
filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking relief from his conviction and
sentence. See doc. no. 1. With the court’s leave, he filed an amended petition, see
doc. no. 4, and an addendum to his amended petition, see doc. no. 9. The court
issued a Final Order denying Stuart-Holt’s amended petition on November 8, 2018.
Doc. no. 20.

2

Since the court issued its Final Order in 2018, Stuart-Holt has filed
numerous motions for reconsideration of the court’s Final Order (doc. nos. 23, 34), to
void the judgment entered against him (doc. nos. 40, 47, 55, 57, 59, 62, 70)—
including the instant motion (doc. no. 72)—and for reconsideration of the court’s
orders denying his motions to void judgment (doc. nos. 56, 64, 71). All these
motions have been patently frivolous, and most have been mutually duplicative.
Considering that these abusive litigation practices have continued over a
period of several years, Stuart-Holt is admonished that, should he continue to file
frivolous and duplicative motions, the court will consider sanctions such as placing
limits on the manner in which he will be permitted to file further motions in this
case. “Federal courts ‘possess discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of
abusive litigants.’ This power includes the ability to enjoin a party—even a pro se
party—from filing frivolous and vexatious motions.” United States v. GómezRosario, 418 F.3d 90, 101 (1st Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Stuart-Holt’s motion to void the judgment (doc. no. 72) is denied. Because
Stuart-Holt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability of this order. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
September 24, 2021
cc: Zakee Stuart-Holt, pro se
Counsel of Record
3