Satya V. Reddi v. Hughes & Hughes LLP, et al.

For more than 70 years, the leading authority on fraud-upon-the-court has been Hazel-Atlas Glass v. Hartford-Empire, 322 U.S. 238, 247-248 (1944) in which this court held, "Doubtless it is wholly impossible accurately to appraise the influence [of the corrupt document] exerted on the judges. * * * [Defendants] are in no position now to dispute [fraud's] effectiveness. Neither should they now be permitted to escape the consequences. * * * The question, then, is not whether relief can be granted, but which court can grant it." (Emphasis added) In the context of 42 U.S.0 §1983 complaint alleging defendants' fraud-upon-the-state -court and FRCP 12(b)(6) motion seeking its dismissal, the questions presented are: Whether adjudication of fraud-upon-the-court based complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) violates plaintiffs constitutional right to due process with minimized risk of judicial errors when courts assent to, entertain, or even hear defenses and objections predicated on or implicated by the movant's fraud-upon-the -court in conflict with clean hands doctrine; Hazel-Atlas Glass v. Hartford-Empire, 322 U.S. 238 (1944); and Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979). Whether private attorney who successfully deceived the court shall be considered state actor and liable for the damages.