Jones v. Joseph Caputo

Background

On January 4, 2023, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s report and recommendation and dismissed Rafael A. Jones’s petition without prejudice. The court concluded that federal abstention under Younger v. Harris barred the petition because it concerned ongoing state criminal proceedings. Judgment was entered on January 6, 2023, and the case was closed.

On February 10, 2023, Jones moved for relief from the judgment and the January 4 order. The court treated the motion primarily as one under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), 60(d)(3), and 60(b)(6), which address relief based on fraud or misconduct, fraud affecting the court’s adjudicative process, and other extraordinary reasons. The court also construed Jones’s reference to Rule 59 as a request for reconsideration.

Jones’s Arguments

Jones alleged that his court-appointed attorney promised to obtain dismissal of the case, that his attorney and Caputo’s counsel intentionally excluded him from a December 20, 2022 telephone conference before Judge Aaron, and that Caputo committed fraud by continuing to appear after Jones informed the court that Caputo no longer had custody of him. Jones also argued that Judge Aaron and Judge Cronan failed to consider filings challenging the state court’s competency determination.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Jones provided no clear and convincing evidence of material misrepresentations or intentional misconduct. His allegations about being excluded from the conference were conclusory. The record showed that Jones’s attorney stated during the conference that Jones was not on the telephone and intended to send him the transcript. The court also found that any failure to notify Jones of the conference appeared inadvertent and was not shown to be caused by Caputo or Caputo’s counsel.

The court rejected the argument that Caputo’s continued appearance was fraud on the court. It also concluded that Jones had not shown that the alleged events prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his claims. The court noted that Jones had made numerous filings and had ample opportunity to present arguments about whether abstention applied. It further stated that Jones cited no authority establishing a right to attend the conference, particularly because he was represented by counsel and the conference concerned legal issues.

The court found that it had considered Jones’s December 10, 2022 letter when adopting Judge Aaron’s recommendation. The letter did not address why abstention should not apply. The court similarly noted that another filing did not provide a reason abstention was inapplicable and instead suggested that state proceedings were continuing.

For reconsideration under Rule 59(e), Jones did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear legal error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The court therefore found no basis to alter the judgment.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan denied Jones’s motion in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to close the motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.