Parker v. Martin et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 66 Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Judgment for Fraud on the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti on 2/15/2023. (ekw)

Case 5:13-cv-01365-D Document 67 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALVIN PARKER,
Petitioner,
v.
TERRY MARTIN, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-1365-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Vacate Judgment for Fraud on the
Court [Doc. No. 66]. 1 Petitioner seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and (d)(3)
from the Order and Judgment of May 8, 2014 [Doc. Nos. 23 and 24], which dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2
Petitioner asserts that Respondent “presented false evidence and made false statements
during the § 2254 proceedings.” See Motion, ¶ 1.
Petitioner’s Motion concerns a judgment entered more than eight years ago in this
case, based on decades-old trial transcripts from his state court criminal case. Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
This case did not decide the merits of any § 2254 petition but, instead, was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. This is Petitioner’s eighth motion asking the Court to reconsider,

1

As a pro se litigant, Petitioner is entitled to liberal construction of his Motion. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
2

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit found the petition was correctly dismissed, denied a
certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal. See Parker v. Martin, 589 F. App’x 866,
868-69, 870 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished).

Case 5:13-cv-01365-D Document 67 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 2

amend, or vacate the judgment or a post-judgment ruling in this case. By any measure,
the instant Motion is untimely and without merit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (motion
“must be made within a reasonable time” and under (b)(3) “no more than a year after the
entry of the judgment”); see also United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1341 (10th Cir.
2002) (“Fraud on the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is
not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Judgment for
Fraud on the Court [Doc. No. 66] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2023.

TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge

2