Court Opinion

ID: 2964021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:07.381352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:17.648446
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 18, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2374

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    PETER GRABLER,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                           Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. 
                                          ______________

                                 ____________________

            Peter Grabler on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and  George B. Henderson,
            _______________                               ____________________
        II, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        __

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  When the United  States would not sell
                      __________

            or lease  land it owned to  defendant-appellant Peter Grabler

            so  that he  could  build a  tennis  court in  his  backyard,

            Grabler went  ahead and built the court  anyway.  There is no

            dispute  that part of the court was constructed on land owned

            by the  government (which  abutted Grabler's property).   The

            government  sued in  federal  district court.   The  district

            court granted the  government's motion  for summary  judgment

            and  ordered Grabler to remove the court and restore the land

            to its original  condition.  Grabler  makes two arguments  on

            appeal.

                      1.    Grabler  contends that  a  government lawyer,

            Theodore Smollen,  committed fraud on the  district court and

            that,  as  a result,  the government  is  not entitled  to an

            equitable remedy.  Specifically, Grabler asserts that Smollen

            told Grabler that but for the  fact that Grabler lived in  an

            affluent  neighborhood,  the  government  would  have  worked

            something out  instead of  insisting that Grabler  remove the

            tennis court.  In  a district court pleading,  the government

            denied  that Smollen had made this statement.  Grabler argues

            that  this denial was for the purpose of misleading the court

            and for  the purpose of preventing him  from fully presenting

            his  counterclaim that  the government  had denied  him equal

            protection of the laws by discriminating against him based on

            wealth.

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

                      We have stated that

                              [a]  "fraud  on  the  court"
                           occurs   where    it   can   be
                           demonstrated,    clearly    and
                           convincingly, that  a party has
                           sentiently  set in  motion some
                           unconscionable           scheme
                           calculated  to  interfere  with
                           the  judicial  system's ability
                           impartially  to   adjudicate  a
                           matter       by      improperly
                           influencing   the   trier    or
                           unfairly      hampering     the
                           presentation  of  the  opposing
                           party's claim or defense.
                           

            Aoude  v.  Mobil Oil  Corp., 892  F.2d  1115, 1118  (1st Cir.
            _____      ________________

            1989).  Only  the "most egregious misconduct directed  to the

            court itself" will justify  a finding of fraud on  the court.

            Pfizer, Inc. v. International  Rectifier Corp., 538 F.2d 180,
            ____________    ______________________________

            195 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied,  429 U.S. 1040 (1977).  We
                                 ____________

            have no trouble concluding that there was no such fraud here.

                      Grabler's  claim fails for  the simple  reason that

            there  never  was  an  equal  protection  counterclaim   and,

            further,  because Grabler  never  raised such  a claim  until

            after he says  he discovered  the alleged fraud.   Thus,  the
            _____

            government's  actions  prior to  the  assertion  of an  equal
                                   ________

            protection violation could  not have been for  the purpose of

            preventing the district  court from adjudicating the  matter.

            Indeed, the government had no reason to formulate a scheme to

            interfere with a claim Grabler never made.

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

                      Finally,  Grabler  does  not  make   out  an  equal

            protection  violation on  the merits.   In  a case,  as here,

            which alleges improper selective enforcement, a litigant must

            show, among  other things,  specific  instances where  others

            "situated  similarly  in  all relevant  aspects  were treated

            differently . . . ."   Rubinovitz v. Rogato, 60 F.3d 906, 910
                                   __________    ______

            (1st Cir. 1995) (internal  quotations and citations omitted).

            Grabler's  references to  persons who  were permitted  to use

            government  land do  not  contain any  information about  how
                                              ___

            their circumstances compared to  Grabler's.  Nor does Grabler

            demonstrate  any malicious  intent on the  government's part,

            another requirement for stating such a claim.  See id.
                                                           ___ ___

                      2.   Grabler's second appellate contention  is that

            the   injunction   entered   by   the   district   court   is

            inappropriate.  We have  reviewed Grabler's arguments in this

            regard and find  that the  district court did  not abuse  its

            discretion in ordering  the relief  it did.   See Merchant  &
                                                          ___ ___________

            Evans, Inc.  v. Roosevelt Bldg.  Products Co., 963  F.2d 628,
            ___________     _____________________________

            633  (3rd Cir. 1992) (the terms of an injunction are reviewed

            for abuse of  discretion).  Specifically, the order  does not

            require Grabler to do any wetland reseeding.

                      Because   this  appeal   does   not   present   any

            substantial questions, we affirm the judgment of the district
                                      ______

            court.  See Local Rule 27.1.  The motion for a stay is denied
                    ___                                            ______

            as moot.

                                         -4-
                                         -4-