The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MALIK SHAKUR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-251-R
)
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, )
et al., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a document titled “Independent Action to Re-
open and Set Aside Judgment Under ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ for Fraud on the
Court” [Doc. No. 10]. Plaintiff’s motion invokes Rule 60(d)(3) and seeks relief from the
Court’s order and judgment dismissing this action for failure to state a claim and failure to
serve.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) “reserves to the district court the power to
set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.’” Day v. Devries, No. 22-3107, 2023 WL
4363894, at *2 (10th Cir. July 6, 2023) (unpublished) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)).1
1 “A fraud-on-the-court claim may be brought either as an independent action preserved by
the savings clause in Rule 60(d)(3), or as a claim under Rule 60(b)(3), which provides for
relief from judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party.” United States v. Baker, 718 F.3d 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) (quotation and ellipses
omitted). Although Plaintiff describes his motion as an “independent action” to set aside
judgment, Rule 60(b)(3) might be the better match given that he has filed the motion in this
action and is asking the Court to set aside its own judgment. But regardless of which
provision of Rule 60 he is proceeding under, “the same demanding standard of proof for
establishing a fraud on the court” applies. Id.
Fraud on the court claims concern “fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself”
and are exceedingly difficult to prove. United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1342 (10th
Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). “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 an attorney is implicated will constitute a fraud on the court.” Weese v. Schukman,
98 F.3d 542, 552-53 (10th Cir. 1996). Fraud on the court must be shown “by clear and
convincing evidence” and “all doubts must be resolved in favor of the finality of the
judgment.” /d. at 552.
Plaintiff's motion contends that the Court’s prior order “blocked” and “unilaterally
str[uck] down” Executive Order 14284 which, among other things, made changes to the
Merit Systems Protection Board’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a terminated probationary
employee’s appeal. The Court’s order dismissing this action was primarily based on
Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible claim for discrimination and had no bearing on
Executive Order 14284. Plaintiff's assertions do not appear to even be properly
characterized as fraud on the court and, in any event, fall short of the standard required to
show fraud or to otherwise warrant granting relief from the judgment.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1*' day of December, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE