USA v. Lampley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 	EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	§
§
versus 	§ 	CASE NO. 1:18-CR-20
§
WILLIE LAMPLEY 	§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant Willie Lampley’s (“Lampley”) pro se Motion for
Relief from Judgment, Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), Fraud on the Court (#128). Having considered
the motion and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied.
Citing Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lampley seeks relief from his
Judgment based on “Fraud on the Court.” 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) “allows
courts to ‘set aside a judgment for fraud on the court’ without a strict time bar.” 	Jackson v.
Thaler, 348 F. App’x 29, 34 (5th Cir. 2009). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides for
relief from a civil judgment or order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure
in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts . . . .” (emphasis added));
United States v. Garcia, 804 F. App’x 274, 275 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[C]ivil rule does not apply in
criminal cases.”); United States v. Moore, 671 F. App’x 349, 350 (5th Cir. 2016) (same). Thus,
Lampley’s reliance on Rule 60 is misplaced, as this is a criminal proceeding. 	United States v.
Hill, No. 25-20042, 2025 WL 1863182, at *1 (5th Cir. July 7, 2025) (“Rule 60(d)(3) is a civil
rule; it is not a vehicle for directly attacking a criminal judgment.”); United States v. Frias, 795
F. App’x 296, 297 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that Rule 60(d)(3) does not apply in criminal
proceedings); see also United States v. Rico, 797 F. App’x 176, 176 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Rule 60
does not apply in criminal proceedings.”) (citing United States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th
Case 1:18-cr-00020-MAC-CLS Document 129 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Cir. 1991)). 	In short, Rule 60 does not provide relief from a criminal judgment, as sought by
Lampley. See Hill, 2025 WL 1863182, at *1 (“To the extent that [the defendant] sought to use
Rule 60(d)(3) as a vehicle for directly attacking his amended criminal judgment, the rule did not
provide a basis for such relief, and [his] motion was meaningless and unauthorized.”).
Accordingly, Lampley’s pro se Motion for Relief from Judgment, Pursuant to Rule
60(d)(3), Fraud on the Court (#128) is DENIED.
2
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 6th day of March, 2026.
Case 1:18-cr-00020-MAC-CLS Document 129 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>