Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06035/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

GEORGE L. 

v. 

CARROLL E. 

FILLO 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United StatesCiourtC. ~tAppeal! Tenth t!'Cl't 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 111993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

MOTHERSHED, Clerk ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

GREGG, GARY L. BROOKS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-6035 

(D.C. No. CIV-88-1504-W) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff George L. Mothershed appeals from the district 

court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment, filed pursuant to 

* This order and j ent has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or u sed by any court within t h e Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, ·res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6035 Document: 010110114152 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 1 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The judgment in question was entered on 

September 28, 1989, following the district court's grant of a 

d i rected verdict in defendants' favor. This court affirmed the 

judgment on appeal. See Mothershed v. Southwestern Bank & Trust 

Co., Nos. 89-6144, 89-6314 (10th Cir. Jan. 30, 1991) (unpublished 

decision). 

Mr. Mothershed maintains the district court abused its 

discretion in denying his motion. See Campbell v. Bartlett, 975 

F.2d 1569, 1580 n.15 (10th Cir. 1992) (this court normally reviews 

denial of Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion). He contends 

that Mr. Gregg committed perjury during the civil trial which lead 

to the 1989 judgment. He asserts the perjury was so egregious 

that it requires the judgment be vacated. Defendant Gregg 

contends that this appeal is frivolous, and that sanctions are 

appropriate under Fed. R. App. P. 38. 

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as 

the parties' briefs and the district court's order. We agree with 

the district court that the perjury which Mr. Mothershed has 

described does not rise to the level of a fraud on the court so as 

to bring his claims within the savings clause of Rule 60(b). See 

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245 

(1944); Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 

1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1086 (1986). Consequently, for the 

reasons stated in the district court's order, the judgment is 

affirmed. 

This leads us to the 

sanctions. Fed. R. App. P. 

issue of Mr. Gregg's request for 

38 authorizes this court to award 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-6035 Document: 010110114152 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 2 
damages if we determine that an appeal is frivolous or brought for 

the purpose of delay. Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 

(10th Cir. 1987). An appeal is frivolous when "'the result is 

obvious, or the appellant's arguments of error are wholly without 

merit.'" Id. (quoting Taylor v. Sentry Life Ins. Co., 729 F.2d 

652, 656 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted)). 

At the time Mr. Mothershed filed this appeal, it was 

absolutely clear that the perjury which he describes, even if 

true, would not constitute fraud on the court as that term has 

been judicially interpreted. See Hazel, 322 U.S. at 245-46; 

Bulloch, 763 F.2d at 1121; see also Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. 

International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & 

Helpers, 675 F.2d 1349, 1356 (4th Cir. 1982) (courts agree that 

fraud on the court should be construed very narrowly when applied, 

as here, under the savings clause of Rule 60), cert. denied, 459 

U.S. 1128 (1983). Minimal legal research makes that abundantly 

clear. 

In addition, Mr. Mothershed has not cited any authority which 

stands for the proposition that he, as a nonprevailing party to 

the judgment, was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the 

district court prior to the court's consideration of the Rule 60 

motion. Finally, there is nothing in the record to show the 

district court abused its discretion in staying discovery. It is 

apparent Mr. Mothershed simply wants to relitigate the issues 

decided in the 1989 lawsuit. Under these circumstances, allowing 

him to do so would severely undermine the integrity of the final 

judgment rule. See Bulloch, 763 F.2d at 1121 (unless party shows 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-6035 Document: 010110114152 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 3 
fraud on the court through clear and convincing evidence, judgment 

should not be disturbed). 

We agree with Mr. Gregg that sanctions pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 38 are appropriate. We award as just damages the 

sum of $1,500 plus single costs. Mr. Mothershed shall make 

payment within sixty days of the date of this order and judgment. 

Mr. Mothershed's motion to correct his brief is GRANTED. His 

motion to expedite this appeal and his application for writ of Ne 

Exeat are DENIED as moot. The judgment of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-6035 Document: 010110114152 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 4