1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES BLUNT, 

 Petitioner, Case Number: 08-14808 

 Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith 

v. 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 

PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B) AND 60(D)(2)(3), 60(B)(6) (Dkt. 47) 

 Petitioner Charles Blunt has filed another motion for relief from judgment challenging the 

disposition of his self-representation claim. This time, he challenges the Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals’ April 6, 2017 Order denying his application for a certificate of appealability. Blunt v. 

Berghuis, No. 16-2326 (6th Cir. Apr. 6, 2017) (ECF No. 47). The Court denies the motion. 

 In his habeas petition, Petitioner claimed that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to 

self-representation in his state court criminal trial. The Court denied Petitioner’s pro se petition 

on April 5, 2011. See 4/5/2011 Order (Dkt. 13). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit affirmed the Court’s decision. Blunt v. Woods, 505 F. App’x 569 (6th Cir. 2012). 

 Petitioner then filed a motion for relief from judgment arguing that the state committed 

fraud by stating to the Michigan Court of Appeals and this Court that he did not previously secure 

an acquittal when representing himself in a criminal trial. (Dkt. 26). The Court denied the motion, 

see 10/15/2013 Order (Dkt. 27), and denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, see 

11/18/2013 Order (Dkt. 30). The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of 
2 

appealability from the Court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment. Blunt v. Berghuis, 

No. 14-1819 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2014). 

 Petitioner then filed two motions under Rules 60(b) and 60(d), again arguing that the 

Michigan Attorney General committed a fraud upon the Court by stating that Petitioner did not 

successfully represent himself in a 1994 state criminal trial. See Pet. Mots. (Dkt. 39, 40). The 

Court denied the motions. See 8/26/2016 Order (Dkt. 41). Petitioner filed two applications for a 

certificate of appealability in the Court of Appeals. He argued that the state prosecutor and 

attorney general knew and should have investigated his claim that he had successfully represented 

himself during the 1994 trial. The Court of Appeals held that, even assuming that Petitioner 

successfully represented himself in the 1994 trial, he failed to show that the Michigan Attorney 

General or state prosecutor committed fraud. Blunt v. Berghuis, No. 16-2326 at 3-4 (6th Cir. April 

6, 2017). 

 In the present motion, Petitioner yet again argues that the state prosecutor and Michigan 

Attorney General committed a fraud upon the Court by denying that he represented himself in 

1994. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied this claim, finding no fraud by the Michigan 

Attorney General or state prosecutor. Id. This Court may not reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals. United States v. Todd, 920 F.2d 399, 403, n.1 (6th Cir. 1990) (“[W]hen a superior court 

determines the law of the case, an inferior court lacks the power to depart from it.”). 

 Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to 

Rule 60(b) and 60(d)(2)(3), 60(b)(6) (Dkt. 47). 

Dated: April 9, 2019 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any 

unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail 

addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 9, 2019. 

 s/Erica Karhoff for Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager