Williams v. Warden F.S.L. Jesup, GA, 5:15-cv-00063

Franklin L. Williams is a federal prisoner whose 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition was dismissed by the Southern District of Georgia on June 17, 2016; he appealed to the Eleventh Circuit and was denied IFP status.
Williams filed a Rule 60(b)(2) motion claiming newly discovered evidence: that his retained criminal/appellate attorney (paid $27,000) had nevertheless sought CJA payment and thereby committed fraud or misconduct.
Williams attached docket excerpts and an Eleventh Circuit decision excerpt and said he only discovered the attorney’s CJA voucher submission on September 16, 2016.
The court treated the motion under Rule 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) but noted Williams also alleged attorney fraud—which would ordinarily implicate Rule 60(b)(3) if the government were accused.
The district court found Williams failed each Rule 60(b)(2) requirement: the evidence was not credibly newly discovered, Williams showed no due diligence, the evidence was cumulative/impeaching, and it was not material enough to alter prior judgments.
The court denied the Rule 60(b)(2) motion and warned against filing frivolous motions or new petitions on the same grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) based on allegedly newly discovered evidence that his retained counsel sought CJA payment	Williams: discovery of counsel’s CJA voucher in 2016 is newly discovered evidence that shows counsel committed fraud and supports relief	Respondent/Court: the CJA appointment and related records were publicly available years earlier; Williams lacked diligence, the material is cumulative/impeaching, and would not change the result	Denied — Williams failed to meet the five-part Rule 60(b)(2) test (not newly discovered, no due diligence, cumulative/impeaching, not material)
Whether the allegations of counsel fraud should be treated under Rule 60(b)(3)	Williams characterized counsel’s conduct as fraud/misconduct warranting relief	Court: Rule 60(b)(3) applies to fraud by an opposing party (not Williams’ counsel), and Williams did not properly plead claims against the government under that provision	Court declined to treat the motion as one under 60(b)(3) and warned against relitigation; relief denied

Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and requirements must be strictly met)
Liquidation Committee of Banco Intercontinental, S.A. v. Renta, 530 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2008) (newly discovered evidence must be sufficiently material to alter the prior judgment)