Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Mark A. Hill’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), (3), and (6). The court held that newly discovered audio recordings, alleged fraud, and Hill’s arguments concerning protected-class status did not cure the defects in his § 1985 and § 1986 conspiracy claims or establish grounds for disturbing the prior judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether newly discovered audio recordings warranted relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2).
- Whether alleged misrepresentations by defendants warranted relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3).
- Whether Hill's assertion that the court applied an improper pleading standard warranted relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Holdings
- The newly obtained recordings did not warrant relief because they were neither material nor controlling and would not have changed the prior dismissal of Hill's conspiracy claims.
- The alleged misrepresentations did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because they were not relevant to the grounds on which Hill's conspiracy claims were dismissed and did not adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.
- Hill was not entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief because reframing his prior arguments and asserting that criminal-defendant status was a protected class did not establish exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.
Key quotations
“Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent the stringent requirements for post-conviction relief.” (III.A)
“Rule 60(b) is not a vehicle to give the losing litigant a second bite at the apple.” (III.C)
Factual background
Hill, an Ohio inmate, was convicted of felonious assault after an August 25, 2018 altercation with Martie Jacobs. Hill alleged that several people involved in or possessing information about the incident conspired, in part because of Hill's race, to deprive him of civil rights. After the underlying civil-rights action was dismissed, Hill obtained recordings of interviews with witnesses and argued that the recordings showed undisclosed exculpatory information and fraud. The court concluded that the recordings did not cure the pleading deficiencies underlying the dismissal.
Procedural history
Hill filed the action on August 11, 2021, asserting claims arising from his felony-assault prosecution and alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of civil rights. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and on March 11, 2024, the district court adopted the recommendation, granted Jennifer Pell's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against all defendants without prejudice. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Hill then sought relief from judgment based on newly discovered recordings, alleged fraud, and asserted legal error; the district court denied the motion.