Case: 14-14096 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14096
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00100-WTM-GRS
WILLIE G. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHILLIPS WINTERS
APARTMENTS,
a.k.a. Independent Lifestyles, Inc.,
HALLMARK MANAGEMENT,
ETHAL JACKSON,
JANET STRICKLAND,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 30, 2015)
Case: 14-14096 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) seeking relief from a judgment
based on alleged fraud on the court. On appeal, Mr. Smith contends that the
district court judge (1) should have disqualified himself from deciding the motion
due to personal bias and (2) engaged in a fraud upon the court when he dismissed
Mr. Smith’s underlying claim as time barred.
I.
Mr. Smith’s first argument on appeal is that the district court judge should
have disqualified himself due to personal bias.1 We review a district court judge’s
denial of a motion to recuse for an abuse of discretion. Gwynn v. Walker (In re
Walker), 532 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2008). A judge is to recuse “himself in
any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The standard for recusal under § 455(a) is “whether an
objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the
grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the
judge’s impartiality.” United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003)
1
Mr. Smith also argues that the district court judge refused to consider his original
motion for relief and the first amendment to the motion. The record shows, however, that the
district court ruled on Mr. Smith’s original motion and his subsequent amendments to the
motion.
2
Case: 14-14096 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 3 of 4
(internal quotation marks omitted). The general rule is that “bias sufficient to
disqualify a judge must stem from extrajudicial sources.” Gwynn, 532 F.3d at
1310 (internal citation marks omitted). A judge’s rulings in a case are a basis for
recusal only when they “show such pervasive bias and prejudice that it constitutes
bias against a party.” Id. at 1311.
There is no evidence of extrajudicial bias in this case. Instead, the only acts
that Mr. Smith argues warrant recusal are rulings by the district court judge with
which Mr. Smith disagrees. Because a fully informed and objective observer
would not entertain a significant doubt about the district court judge’s impartiality,
Mr. Smith has not shown that the district court abused its discretion when it
refused to recuse.
II.
Mr. Smith further argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule
60(d)(3) motion. He argues that the magistrate judge and the district court judge
committed fraud by dismissing his underlying claims as time barred because they
failed to discuss complaints he filed with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”), which, he asserts, tolled the statute of limitations.
Under Rule 60(d)(3), a district court can “set aside a judgment for fraud on
the court.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). The party seeking relief under Rule
60(d)(3) must establish fraud “by clear and convincing evidence.” Booker v.
3
Case: 14-14096 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 4 of 4
Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283 (11th Cir. 1987). “Generally speaking, only the most
egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury or the
fabrication of evidence by a party in which the attorney is implicated, will
constitute a fraud on the court.” Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338
(5th Cir. 1978) (internal quotation marks omitted).2 We review the denial of a
Rule 60(d)(3) motion for an abuse of discretion. See Booker, 825 F.2d at 285.
Because there is no evidence of fraud in this case, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Smith’s motion. Mr. Smith argues that the
district and magistrate judges committed fraud by failing to consider his argument
that the statute of limitations was tolled while HUD investigated his claims.
However, the record shows that the court considered and rejected the tolling
argument when it held that, “regardless of any excludable time,” the statute of
limitations had run. See May 23, 2012 Order at 2 (DE 22). Mr. Smith has not
presented any clear and convincing evidence of fraud in this case. Instead, he
improperly seeks to relitigate the merits of his equitable tolling argument through a
Rule 60(d)(3) motion. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it denied Mr. Smith’s motion.
AFFIRMED.
2
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981), this Court adopted
as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of
business on September 30, 1981.
4