NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNIT ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 3 9 1 2

__________

BRANDON L. FAKE, father of C. Fake, minor and B. Fake, minor;

C. F., minor; B. F., minor

v

.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; PHILADELPHIA C OUNTY

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; D IANE R. THOMPSON, Judge;

ROBERT A. GRACI, Judicial Conduct Board; JUDGE MARGARET T. MURPHY

Brandon L. Fake,

Appellant

________________________ ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the M i d d l e D istrict of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 17

- cv

- 02242 )

District Judge: Ho norable Yvette Kane

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

O c t o b e r 1

, 2 0 2 0

Be fore: A M B R O

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , a n d P O R T E R

, Circuit Judges

(Opin ion filed : December 9, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

cons titute bind i ng precede nt.2

PER CURIAM

B r a n d o n F a k e f

iled a p r o s e c o m p l a i n t in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the

Philad e l phia Court of Common Pleas, Ju dge Diane R. Thompson, Judge Margaret T.

Murphy, and R obert A. Graci ( th e Chief Counsel of the Judicial Conduct Board of

Pennsylvania). He c l a i m e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o n s p ired to d e p r i v e h i m o f h i s

c o n s t i t u tion a l right s d

u r i n g c h i l d

- c u s t o d y proceedings i n t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a C o u r t o f

C o m m o n P l e a s

. T h e d e f

e n d a n t s m o v e d t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s

1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 6 ) o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d

u r e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d

t h e m o t i o n a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t

. 1 T h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d

. Fake v. Pennsylvania

,

758 F. App ’ x 307, 310 (3d Cir. 201 8) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ( n o t p r e c e d e n t i a l )

.

F a k e t h e n f

i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o

R u l e s 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 )

, ( 2 )

, ( 3 ) a n d ( 6 ) a n d 6 0 ( d ) ( 1 ) a n d ( 3 ) o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l

P r o c e d u r e

. I n e s s e n c e

, F a k e a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ a t t o r n e y

, M a r t h a G a l e

,

c o m m i t t e d p e r

j u r y a n d f r a u d i n t h e m o t i o n

- t o

- d i s m i s s p r o c e e d i n g s i n o r d e r t o “ c o v e r u p ”

a n d “ c o n c e a l t h e o n g o i n g [ f ] e d e r a l c r i m e s o f t

h e [ d ] e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r o p e r a t i o n o f t h e

hu m a n t r a f

f i c k i n g e n t e r

p r i s e fo r p r o f

i t a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t

a n d i t s [ c ] i t i z e n s

. ” M o t

. a t 4

- 5

, E C F N o

. 2 0

. F a k e s ub m i t t e d a n a f f i d a v i t a n d v a r i o u s

1 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e n i e d F a k e ’ s m o t i o n s f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n

j u n c t i o n

, a t e m p o r a r y

r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r

, a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l

, a n d h i s m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n

t o d i s m i s s

.3

s t a t e

- c o u r t f

i l i n g s i n s u

p p o r t o f t h e m o t i o n

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d r e l i e f

. F a k e

a p p e a l s

.

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. W e r e v i e w t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e s 6 0 ( b ) a n d ( d ) f

o r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. Budget Blinds,

Inc. v. White , 536 F.3 d 244, 251 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2008)

.

We will affirm f

o r s ub s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a m e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. A s

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d

, F a k e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) b e c a u s e h e

c o u l d h a v e r a i s e d h i s a l l e g a t i o n s o n a p p e a l

. See U nited State s v. F i orelli , 337 F.3d 282,

288 (3d Cir. 2003)

. I n a d d i t i o n

, F a k e ’ s u n s u p p o r t e d a l l e g a t i o n s o f f

r a u d w e r e i n s u f

f i c i e n t

t o j u s t i f y a n independent a c t i o n u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( d ) ( 1 )

, s ee Jackson v. Danberg , 656 F.3d

157, 166 (3d Cir. 2011) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e c o u r t m a y relieve a party from a judgmen t

u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( d ) ( 1 ) in order to “prevent a grave miscarriage of justice ” )

, o r r e o p e n i n g

u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( d ) ( 3 )

, s e e Booker v. Dugger , 825 F.2d 281, 283 (11th Cir. 1987) ( s t a t i n g

t h a t a p arty seeking relief und er Rule 60( d )(3) m ust establish fraud u p o n t h e c o u r t “ by

clear and convincing evidence ” )

. L a s t l y

, g i v e n t h a t F a k e f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n y b a s i s t o

w a r r a n t r e o p e n i n g

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g F a k e ’ s r e q u e s t

f o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l

.

W e h a v e r e v i e w e d F a k e ’ s b r i e f o n a p p e a l a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t h i s o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r a r e m e r i t l e s s

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f f i r m

.