Muyet v. United States

Background

Pro se petitioner Jose Muyet moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) for relief from the judgment denying his prior habeas petition. Rule 60(d)(3) allows a court to set aside a judgment for “fraud on the court.” Muyet alleged that the Government and his criminal trial counsel fraudulently stated in affidavits that the Government had never offered him a plea deal.

Legal standard

The court explained that “fraud on the court” covers fraud that corrupts the court itself or is committed by officers of the court in a way that prevents the judicial process from fairly deciding the case. A person seeking relief under Rule 60(d)(3) must prove the fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Muyet did not meet that standard. He primarily argued that his co-defendants received plea offers, which he believed meant that he must have received one too, and that his lawyer’s discipline and disbarment for misconduct in other cases showed that the lawyer may have lied in his affidavit. The court found that neither point, nor anything else in the motion, was clear and convincing evidence of fraud.

The court also distinguished between discussions about the broad contours of a possible global plea arrangement for all defendants and an actual formal plea offer covering Muyet. It found no evidence contradicting former Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Finnegan’s sworn statement that the Government never made Muyet a plea offer.

Disposition

Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Muyet’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Muyet a copy of the order, mark the action closed, and deny all pending motions as moot.