UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR L. LOCKETT, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 08-14770 

v. 

Hon. Denise Page Hood 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

COMPANY AND TRUSTEE, et al., 

Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (#7) 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Arthur L. Lockett=s Motion 

for Relief from Judgment filed July 13, 2023. On January 22, 2009, more 

than 14 years ago, the Court entered a Judgment and Order summarily 

dismissing Lockett=s Complaint. (ECF Nos. 5, 6) No appeal was taken 

challenging the dismissal. 

Lockett=s current 94-page Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order 

under Rule 60(d)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is based on Fraud 

Upon the Court, Independent Action. It appears Lockett is seeking relief 

including setting aside a Afraudulently obtained conviction@ in a criminal trial 

before the St. Clair County trial court. Lockett also references a 

Landlord-Tenant case before a State district court and a chapter 7 United 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.180 Filed 01/31/24 Page 1 of 7
2 

States Bankruptcy Court proceedings. Plaintiff=s fraud on the court 

argument appears to be that various witnesses, officers, attorneys and 

judges in the various proceedings noted above perpetrated fraud upon the 

court in those proceedings. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedures provides that, 

[T]he court may relieve a party or a party=s legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due 

diligence could not have been discovered in time to 

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or 

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that 

has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The standard under Rule 60(b) is significantly 

higher than the Rule 59(e) standard. Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 

141 F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir. 1998). Motions based on Rule 60(b)(1), (2) 

and (3) must be filed no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or 

order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Under the catch-all provision in 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.181 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 7
3 

subsection (6), the Sixth Circuit has held that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion must 

be based upon some reason other than those stated in subsections (1) to 

(5). Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 776 F.2d 1330, 

1333 (6th Cir. 1985). Extraordinary circumstances are needed to grant 

relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Id. Rule 60(d)(3) provides that the court has the 

authority to entertain an independent action to set aside a judgment for 

fraud on the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). 

Courts have held that a Afraud upon the court@ claim is not 

constrained by the one-year time limit. The elements of fraud upon the 

court consists of conduct: 1) on the part of an officer of the court; 2) that is 

directed to the Ajudicial machinery@ itself; 3) that is intentionally false, 

wilfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4) that is a 

positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 

and, 5) that deceives the court. Maloof v. Level Propane, Inc., 429 F. 

App'x 462, 467 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 

338, 348 (6th Cir. 1994)). Relief pursuant to the independent action is 

available only in cases Aof unusual and exceptional circumstances.@ Rader 

v. Cliburn, 476 F.2d 182, 184 (6th Cir. 1973); Hobbs v. Faulkner, No. 

1:17CV441, 2020 WL 772328, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2020). 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.182 Filed 01/31/24 Page 3 of 7
4 

An allegation of perjury of a witness, does not suffice to constitute 

Afraud upon the court.@ H.K. Porter Co., v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 

536 F.2d 1115, 1118 (6th Cir.1976). Rather, Aan officer of the court@ must 

commit fraudulent conduct for a fraud on the court claim to be legally 

cognizable. Preferred Properties, Inc. v. Indian River Ests., Inc., 214 F. 

App'x 538, 540 (6th Cir. 2007). AFraud upon the court should ... embrace 

only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of 

the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the 

judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of 

adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication, and relief should be 

denied in the absence of such conduct.@ Demjanjuk, 10 F.3d at 352; see 

also LaVenture v. Haeberlin, No. 5:04CV-P215-R., 2009 WL 2762267, at *1 

(W.D. Ky. Aug. 27, 2009). AFraud upon the court is typically limited to 

egregious events such as bribery of a judge or juror or improper influence 

exerted on the court, affecting the integrity of the court and its ability to 

function impartially.@ Apotex Corp. v. Merck & Co., 507 F.3d 1357, 1361 

(Fed. Cir. 2007); Elliott v. Chairman of United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 

No. 2:17-CV-47, 2017 WL 6102809, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017). 

ASince attorneys are officers of the court, their conduct, if dishonest, would 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.183 Filed 01/31/24 Page 4 of 7
5 

constituted fraud upon the court.@ See H.K. Porter Co. v. Goodyear Tire & 

Rubber Co., 536 F.2d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir. 1976). 

Because the Court summarily dismissed Lockett=s Complaint, none of 

the Defendants named by Lockett appeared before the Court. These 

Defendants did not commit any type of fraud before this Court in this case 

since they did not submit any documents, affidavits nor presented any 

testimony before this Court. Inasmuch as Locket is claiming fraud upon 

the Court by the Defendants in this case as to their actions in this case, 

such a claim must be dismissed and any relief denied. None of the 

Defendants presented anything before this Court and so could not have 

committed any type of fraud upon this Court as to the instant case. 

In appears that Lockett is attempting to resurrect his claims in the 

Complaint the Court dismissed in 2009 by claiming fraud upon the court 

based on the proceedings before a criminal state court matter, a 

Landlord-Tenant state court case, and a bankruptcy action. However, as 

set forth above, fraud upon the court, to be an independent claim, must be 

directed to the judicial machinery itself and any alleged perjury of a witness 

is not ground for fraud upon the court. Any alleged perjured testimony by 

any witness in any of the proceedings noted by Lockett cannot form a basis 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.184 Filed 01/31/24 Page 5 of 7
6 

for an independent fraud upon the court claim. 

Regarding any statements or actions by any of the lawyers or judges 

in any of the cases cited by Lockett, even as officers of the court, Lockett 

has not shown that they have committed fraud, and if he has so alleged, 

Lockett has not sufficiently plausibly pled the fraud resulted in the 

deception of the court. Lockett=s 94-page Motion for Relief from Judgment 

contain vague and conlcusory allegations unsupported by material facts 

and the allegations are too muddled to serve as a basis for a proper suit. 

See Becker v. Ohio State Legal Servs. Ass'n, 19 Fed. App=x 321, 322 (6th 

Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a pro se complaint 

because it contained Avague and conclusory allegations unsupported by 

material facts@); Janita Theresa Corp. v. U.S. Attorney, No. 96-1706, 1997 

WL 211247, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 1997) (affirming the district court's 

dismissal of a pro se complaint because its allegations were Afar too 

muddled to serve as a basis for a proper suit@); Elliott v. Chairman of United 

States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., No. 2:17-CV-47, 2017 WL 6102809, at *3 (E.D. 

Tenn. Dec. 6, 2017). 

In addition, if Lockett is seeking to overturn his state court criminal 

conviction, he must do so by following the appropriate state court appeal 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.185 Filed 01/31/24 Page 6 of 7
7 

procedures and thereafter filing a timely habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 

' 2254. As to the Landlord-Tenant and bankruptcy actions, Lockett could 

have sought timely appeals of those actions. There is no indication 

Lockett followed any of the appellate procedures in the underlying actions. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF 

No. 7) is DENIED. 

s/Denise Page Hood 

DENISE PAGE HOOD 

United States District Judge 

DATED: January 31, 2024 

Case 2:08-cv-14770-DPH-VMM ECF No. 8, PageID.186 Filed 01/31/24 Page 7 of 7