Vaughan v. Foltz, et al

Filing 176

ORDER denying 172 Motion for Relief From Judgment; granting 174 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/18/2022. A copy of this Order was sent via US mail to Susan W. Vaughan at 613 Fifth Ave, Apt 1, Greensboro, NC 27405 (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
NO. 2:16-CV-61-FL
SUSAN W. VAUGHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHANNON FOLTZ an individual,
SAMANTHA HURD an individual,
KRISTEN HARRIS an individual,
KATHLYN ROMM an individual, RAY
MATUSKO an individual, STEPHANIE
RYDER an individual, CHUCK LYCETT
an individual, MELANIE CORPREW an
individual, JAY BURRUS an individual,
DOES 1-10 individuals, MELISSA
TURNAGE, KATHERINE
MCCARRON, OFFICER MIKE
SUDDUTH, and OFFICER CARL
WHITE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motions for relief of judgment (DE 172) and
to correct same (DE 174).

For the reasons stated below, the motion to correct is granted and the

motion for relief of judgment is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and proposed complaint, asserting claims for violations of her constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff’s claims arise from defendants’ alleged

involvement in the removal of plaintiff’s adult daughter and minor grandchild from plaintiff’s

Case 2:16-cv-00061-FL Document 176 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 4

home pursuant to North Carolina statutes governing welfare of minors and disabled adults.

The

court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to dismiss on March 19, 2019, and
the judgment was affirmed on direct appeal.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for relief from the

judgment on August 10, 2022, asserting that defendants committed fraud on the court by producing
fraudulent discovery responses.

The motion was briefed fully.

Plaintiff also moves to correct

certain errors in her initial motion for relief.
COURT’S DISCUSSION
In her motion to correct, plaintiff acknowledges factual errors in the original motion for
relief from judgment and provides proposed revisions to account for the errors.

The motion to

correct is GRANTED and the court considers the motion for relief from judgment as amended by
the motion to correct.
Plaintiff moves for relief from the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(d)(3), arguing that defendants Kathlyn Romm (“Romm”) and Ray Matusko’s (“Matusko”)
responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories were fraudulent and that the court therefore should vacate
the judgment.

As a threshold issue, the court addresses the distinction between Rules 60(b)(3)

and 60(d)(3), both of which allow litigants to seek relief from a judgment on the basis of certain
fraudulent conduct occurring during the litigation. Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), a party may seek
relief from the judgment based on fraud committed by an opposing party.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(3). These motions must be made within one year of entry of the judgment. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Plaintiff acknowledges that her motion was brought more than one year after

entry of judgment in this case, and she therefore cannot seek relief under Rule 60(b)(3). (See Pl’s
Reply (DE 175) at 2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
2

Case 2:16-cv-00061-FL Document 176 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 4

Rule 60(d)(3), by contrast, provides that the court may set aside a judgment at any time for
“fraud on the court.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Such motions “permit[] a court to exercise its

inherent equitable powers to obviate a final judgment after one year for fraud on the court.”

Fox

ex rel. Fox v. Elk Run Coal Co., Inc., 739 F.3d 131, 135–36 (4th Cir. 2014). Fraud on the court
is thus distinct from ordinary fraud, and the doctrine must be “construed very narrowly” to prevent
litigants from circumventing the time restrictions applicable to motions under Rule 60(b)(3).
See id.; Great Coastal Exp., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of Am., 675 F.2d 1349, 1356 (4th Cir. 1982).

Fraud on the court requires “an intentional plot to

deceive the judiciary” and it must “touch on the public interest in a way that fraud between
individual parties generally does not.”

Fox, 739 F.3d at 136.

Fraud “between the parties,” even

if it rises to the level of perjury or fabricated evidence, is “not adequate to permit relief as fraud on
the court.” Id.; Great Coastal, 675 F.2d at 1357.
Plaintiff argues that defendants Matusko and Romm perjured themselves in their responses
to her interrogatories.

According to plaintiff, defendant Romm’s sworn statement that she

complied with North Carolina procedural rules during the underlying state court proceedings was
false, and defendant Matusko failed to identify a relevant witness in his interrogatory response.
Plaintiff asserts that in the absence of such fraud, she could have provided evidence sufficient to
withstand defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Even assuming that the allegations in plaintiff’s instant motion are true, they do not amount
to fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3).

As set forth above, perjured or even fabricated

discovery responses are insufficient to establish fraud on the court.

See Fox, 739 F.3d at 136.

Plaintiff also has not established that the “integrity of the court and its ability to function
3

Case 2:16-cv-00061-FL Document 176 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 4

impartially is directly impinged” by the alleged fraud.

See id. (quotations omitted).

Even if

defendants Romm and Matusko’s discovery responses are fraudulent in the ways plaintiff asserts,
the new information plaintiff alleges that she has now uncovered would not change the court’s
analysis of plaintiff’s claims.

See Vaughan v. Foltz, No. 2:16-CV-61-FL, 2019 WL 1265055

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 2019); Vaughan v. Foltz, No. 2:16-CV-61-FL, 2017 WL 4872484 (E.D.N.C.
Oct. 27, 2017).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for relief of judgment (DE 172) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion to correct (DE 174) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of October, 2022.
__________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

4

Case 2:16-cv-00061-FL Document 176 Filed 10/18/22 Page 4 of 4