Opinion ID: 6320445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grave Miscarriage of Justice

Text: Next, the district court was correct in determining that Hunter failed to allege a grave miscarriage of justice. This standard requires a plaintiff to allege “an injustice ‘sufficiently gross’ 8 Hunter’s brief explains this concept as follows: “‘Selective depletion’ occurs when the government voluntarily forfeits maximizing the amount realized from the sale of one of the taxpayer’s assets and makes up the difference by levying on the taxpayer’s remaining assets.” Appellant Br. at 20. 10 No. 21-1496, Hunter v. Sterling Mortg. and Inv. Co. et al. to merit departing from the strict doctrine of res judicata,” and “[f]ew aggrieved parties have met this demanding standard.” Giasson, 872 F.3d at 339–40 (quoting Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 46). As a result, “a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’ in the Rule 60 context has been defined largely by what it is not.” Id. For example, in Giasson, the Sixth Circuit held that allegations that a party misrepresented pricing information during settlement negotiations did not amount to a grave miscarriage of justice. Id. at 341–42. Other types of conduct that do not meet this standard include: allegations that the government withheld information during litigation, Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 47; an “incorrect, adverse legal decision that was not remedied,” Mitchell, 651 F.3d at 599; and allegations of perjury, Comput. Leasco, Inc. v. NTP, Inc., 194 F. App’x 328, 336 (6th Cir. 2006). Similarly, Hunter’s allegations do not meet this high standard.