Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hood v. Brennan

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 21, 2017

JULIAN R. HOOD, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster, United States Postal Service, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, FRAUD ON THE COURT, AND INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC FRAUD.

          GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, Julian R. Hood, Jr., has filed numerous lawsuits in this district and other federal courts alleging claims arising out of his employment with the United States Postal Service (USPS). Hood's employment with the USPS terminated in April of 2004. Hood filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint of discrimination with the USPS, and in November 2005 Hood settled his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement.

         Hood commenced his onslaught of litigation in this district in 2014, and six of his cases, Nos. 1:14-CV-1104, 1180, 1181-83, and 1195, were assigned to the undersigned district judge. On July 10, 2015, the Court entered an Opinion and a separate Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing all of the 2014 cases. On July 18, 2015, the Court denied Hood's motions for reconsideration in the 2014 cases. Hood appealed Case No. 1:14-CV-1104 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed this Court's order dismissing Hood's complaint in an order entered on February 3, 2017. Hood v. Brennan, No. 15-1937, unpublished order (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017).[1]

         In 2015, Hood filed three more cases, Nos. 1:15-CV-434-36. In May of 2015, this Court screened Hood's complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed them as time-barred. Hood appealed all three cases to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the dismissals on the ground that this Court failed to afford Hood an opportunity to argue equitable tolling. Following remand, this Court again screened and dismissed Hood's complaints, concluding that Hood was not entitled to equitable tolling and that Hood's claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Hood appealed all three cases, which remain pending before the Sixth Circuit.

         Finally, on June 2, 2016, the District of Columbia transferred one of Hood's cases to this district, which was assigned to the undersigned district judge as Case No. 1:16-CV-665. On December 19, 2016, this Court entered an Opinion and Order dismissing Hood's complaint as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Hood appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit, and that appeal remains pending.

         Hood has now filed in each of the above-mentioned cases a motion for relief from judgment asserting fraud on the court and intrinsic and extrinsic fraud.[2] His motion is without merit and will be denied.

         Initially, the Court notes that it may consider Hood's motion as to all cases, including those currently on appeal before the Sixth Circuit. Although a district court generally lacks jurisdiction over a case on appeal, see Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419, 421 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction to decide a Rule 60(b) motion), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, adopted in 2009, addresses the instant situation. Rule 62.1 provides:

(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). Pursuant to the rule, the Court will deny the motions.

         Hood states that he brings his motions pursuant to Rules 60(b) and 60(d). Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.