Walsh v. Hagee
10 F. Supp. 3d 15
D.D.C.2013Background
- Pro se plaintiff Rory M. Walsh sued multiple federal officials and private defendants alleging a long-running government conspiracy (RICO, FTCA, Privacy Act, constitutional claims) and sought relief including correction of military records.
- The District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on multiple grounds (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to exhaust), and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
- Walsh moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to reopen the case, asserting: newly discovered evidence (b)(2); fraud on the court (b)(3); that the judgment is void (b)(4); and equitable grounds including defendant nonresponse and substitution of a deceased defendant’s son (b)(6).
- Walsh relied on post-judgment events and public disclosures (Snowden materials) as newly discovered evidence and alleged subsequent break-ins and withheld medical records as proof of fraud.
- Defendants opposed; the Court evaluated whether Walsh met the stringent standards for relief under Rules 60(b)(2), (3), (4), and the catchall (6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(2) relief is warranted for newly discovered evidence | Snowden disclosures and later break‑ins confirm surveillance and thus are "new evidence" that would have changed outcome | Evidence is cumulative or post‑judgment and would not have altered jurisdictional and pleading defects | Denied — Snowden materials are not noncumulative new evidence and alleged break‑ins occurred after the judgment and would not change outcome |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief is warranted for fraud on the court | Government denials and withheld/falsified records constitute fraud that prevented fair presentation | Allegations are speculative, previously raised, and lack clear and convincing proof or prejudice | Denied — plaintiff failed to show clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud or that misconduct foreclosed full and fair presentation |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(4) relief is warranted because the judgment is void | Judgment is void due to due process violations and fraud | Court had authority and jurisdiction to enter judgment; no showing court was powerless to act | Denied — no basis to conclude the court lacked power, jurisdiction, or acted beyond its authority |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) equitable relief is warranted (including substitution and nonresponse) | Nonresponse by Axe and need to substitute deceased defendant’s son justify reopening | Axe was properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; substitution previously denied; extraordinary circumstances not shown | Denied — Rule 60(b)(6) is spare relief for extraordinary circumstances; none shown here |
Key Cases Cited
- Kareem v. FDIC, 811 F.2d 279 (D.C. Cir.) (district court’s Rule 60(b) discretion)
- United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co., 984 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir.) (district court discretion on Rule 60)
- Duckworth v. U.S. ex rel. Locke, 808 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C.) (standards for newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2))
- Summers v. Howard Univ., 374 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir.) (prejudice standard for Rule 60(b)(3))
- Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437 (D.C. Cir.) (when a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4))
- Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(4) and jurisdictional/authority limits)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. Dist. of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary‑circumstances standard)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (Rule 60(b)(6) sparing use)
- Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(6) manifest‑injustice standard)
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir.) (mutual exclusivity of Rule 60(b)(6) with other subsections)
(Notes: citations reflect the opinion’s reliance on Rule 60(b) standards; the District Court denied Walsh’s motion in full.)