Emily Evans, et al. v. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, et al.

Whether, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d), a federal court had the authority, and obligation, to vacate a judgment obtained in a state court, where the documentary and trial testimony evidence unequivocally demonstrated that the prevailing party’s principal witness committed perjury during the trial on a central issue in the lawsuit, suborned by his attorneyan officer of the court-and where the defendant was not represented by an attorney during the trial, because the judge proceeded to conduct the trial even though the defendant’s attorney failed to appear for the trial, despite the fact that the court had not granted his motion to withdraw, and did the federal court abuse its discretion by refusing to apply Rule 60(d) without even addressing the defendant’s claim, or the unequivocal evidence, that the plaintiff’s principal witness had committed perjury, suborned by his attorney.

Whether a declaratory judgment that a state judge had violated the defendant’s right to due process under the 14th Amendment was appropriate where the judge proceeded to conduct a jury trial even though the defendant’s attorney failed to appear for the trial, and the attorney’s motion to withdraw had not been granted, and where the evidence indicated that the judge’s decision to conduct the trial without the defendant’s attorney present was motivated by a retaliatory motive against the defendant because the defendant’s mother had been urging the court to adjourn the trial so that the defendant could retain new counsel, and where the court’s appointment of a receiver to enforce the judgment obtained via the