Zakee Stuart-Holt v. P United States of America

2021 DNH 150

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 24, 2021
• Docket: 17-cv-748-LM
• Status: Published

Opinion

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-822-

LM, 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. Gómez-

Rosario, 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