Brock v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution
Filing
50
OPINION AND ORDER denying 48 Motion. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/15/2019. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DENNIS R. BROCK,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:16-cv-843
JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM
Magistrate Judge King
v.
WARDEN, ROSS CORR. INST.,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Final judgment dismissing this habeas corpus action as time-barred was entered on June
14, 2017. Judgment, ECF No. 25. Since that time, Petitioner has filed a number of motions
seeking to avoid that judgment. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s most recent
motion under Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “Claiming Fraud by the
State of Ohio Upon This Court in This Habeas Case That Has Not Yet Exceeded The AEDPA
One Year Statute of Limitation Requirement of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1).” Petitioner’s Motion for
Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 48.
Petitioner contends in his most recent motion that the State committed fraud by
concealing the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction in this case. Petitioner states that he has filed an
action against the trial judge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding civil rights violations on this
basis and that, under these circumstances, the statute of limitations has yet to expire.
Under Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may set aside a final
judgment “for fraud on the court.” Id. “Relief under Rule 60(d)(3), is usually “reserved for
circumstances in which, for example, a judge or a juror has been bribed, a bogus document is
inserted in the record, or improper influence has been exerted upon the court or an attorney so
that the integrity of the court and its ability to function is directly impinged.” McKenna v. Nestle
Purina Petcare Co., No. C2-05-976, 2011 WL 14418, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2011) (citing
Morawski v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 09–14568, slip. op., 2010 WL 2663201, at *7
(E.D. Mich. July 2, 2002)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
described the requisite “fraud on the court” as “‘egregious conduct involving a corruption of the
judicial process itself.’” Gen. Medicine, P.C. v. Horizon/CMS Health Care Corp., 475 F. App'x
65, 71 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure §
2870). The rule addresses
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 be denied in the
absence of such conduct.
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 352-53 (6th Cir. 1993) (vacating extradition order in light
of a Brady violation by government attorneys) (quoting 7 Moore's Federal Practice and
Procedure ¶ 60.33). A movant seeking to establish fraud sufficient to warrant relief under Rule
60(d) must present 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.
Johnson v. Bell, 605 F.3d 333, 339 (6th Cir. 2010); Carter v. Anderson, 585 F.3d 1007, 1011-12
(6th Cir. 2009).
Petitioner has utterly failed to meet this standard. His assertion of fraud is entirely
without support. He filed this action almost six and one-half years after the statute of limitations
had expired. Moreover, his allegation that the trial court lacked jurisdiction likewise lacks
support and, as this Court has held, does not provide a basis for altering the dismissal of this
2
action as time-barred. Nothing presented in Petitioner's current motion persuades this Court that
the final judgment previously entered in this action was entered in error.
Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment, ECF No. 48, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 15, 2019
____s/James L. Graham________
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
3
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?