Angela W. DeBose v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees, et al.

Whether a Rule 60(d) Independent Action to Attack a Final Judgment is a continuation or re-litigation of the prior case, barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Whether a blameless party must show that she has been denied a full and fair opportunity to present her case by “clear and convincing evidence,” as the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits; or show “substantial interference” in the presentation of her Case, as the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held; or does the burden on this issue shift under certain circumstances to the party opposing a Rule 60(b)(3)/60(d)(3) motion; or must the movant show “only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Travelers Indent. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1551 (11th Cir. 1985).