Parker v. Martin

W.D. Oklahoma

Parker v. Martin

DecidedFebruary 15, 2023

Docket5:13-cv-01365

StatusUnknown

This text of Parker v. Martin (Parker v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Martin, (W.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ALVIN PARKER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-13-1365-D ) TERRY MARTIN, Warden, ) ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

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 See Parker v. Martin, 589 F. App’x 866, 868-69, 870 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). 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 15" day of February, 2023.

VL, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ALVIN PARKER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-13-1365-D ) TERRY MARTIN, Warden, ) ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

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). 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 15" day of February, 2023.

VL, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Parker v. Martin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-martin-okwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack