Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01940/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01940-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Neile E. Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alfred T. Goodwin; William A. Fletcher;

Raymond C. Fisher; and Mary M.

Schroeder

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1940-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Neale E. Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to

Alter/Amend Judgment Per Rule 59(c)” (Dkt.#29) and motion/notice entitled “Judgment was

Obtained by Fraud Per Rule 60 F.R.Civ.P.” (Dkt.#31). After reviewing the pleadings, the

Court enters the following Order.

On July 10, 2007, this Court entered its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against

Defendants’ Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Alfred

T. Goodwin; William A. Fletcher; and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Federal Defendants”). (Dkt.#27). On July 25, 2007, Plaintiff

filed his Motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment. After the Federal Defendants’

responded opposing any such relief, Plaintiff filed his motion/notice claiming that the Court’s

judgment was obtained by fraud pursuant to Rule 60 Fed.R.Civ.P. (Dkt.#31). In support

of Plaintiff’s requested relief under Rule 59, Plaintiff cites conclusory grounds such as: (1)

Case 2:06-cv-01940-MHM Document 34 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

that Federal Judges are not officers of the United States under the Constitution; (2) the

President cannot represent Federal Judges; (3) the United States Congress cannot authorize

such representation; (4) Federal Judges are not entitled additional compensation for such

representation; and (5) that the three judge panel of Goodwin, Fletcher and Fisher which

presided over Plaintiff’s previous appeal had no existence. Moreover, in support of

Plaintiff’s requested Rule 60 relief Plaintiff asserts, in addition to many of the arguments

above, conclusory arguments of: (1) the Federal Defendants have improperly avoided income

tax; and (2) the doctrine of separation of powers requires “prosecutorial respect for the

INDEPENDENCE of federal judges.” (Dkt.#31, p.3) (capitalization original). 

In considering the Plaintiff’s arguments for relief from the Court’s judgment pursuant

to the authority of Rules 59(e) and 60(b) Fed.R.Civ.P., the Court finds that there is no

persuasive basis presented. For instance, a court may grant a Rule 59 motion if the Court:

“(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993),

cert denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). In the instant case, Plaintiff presents no argument

suggesting that such circumstances exist. Notably, the Court previously dismissed the

Plaintiff’s action on grounds of sovereign immunity and judicial immunity. However,

Plaintiff presents no relevant argument challenging such findings in the context of a Rule 59

motion. Further, a court may grant a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)

only “upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6)

extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” Id. Again, Plaintiff presents no

argument relevant to such factors in challenging the Court’s previous findings upon

sovereign immunity and judicial immunity grounds. Because Plaintiff presents no

persuasive argument, the Court will deny the relief requested with respect to the judgment

previously imposed. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01940-MHM Document 34 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff Motion to alter/amend judgment

Pursuant to Rule 59. (Dkt.#29).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion. (Dkt.#31)

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01940-MHM Document 34 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3