Whether a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) is governed by the grave miscarriage of justice standard when alleging fraud upon the court in a civil rights proceeding

QUESTIONS PRESENTED No. 15-30486 consolidated with No. 15-30892 . These. consolidated appellate proceedings requires the court to address a question left : unanswered by this Court in United States v. Beggerly, 524 US 38, 47, 141 L Ed 2d 32, 118S Ct 1862 (1998): 1. Whether a Motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) timely filed within the one-year period is governed by the grave miscarriage of justice standard held in United States v. Beggerly, supra, when a petitioner alleges a fraud upon the court claim improperly used to improperly influence the jury and court decision regarding summary judgment in petitioner’s civil rights proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983? HazelAdlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 US 238, 244, 88 L Ed 1250, 64 S Ct 997 (1944); Rozier v. Ford Motor Co, 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978); First Nat'l Bank of Louisville v. Lustig, 96 F.3d 1554, 1573 (5th Cir. 1996); Browning v. Navarro, 826 F.2d 335, 342-45 (5th Cir. 1987). 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing on:: the Rule 60(b)(3) on the ground of fraud upon the court claim, as distinguishable from’ other enumerated grounds for relief, after the petitioner asserted that state defense’ , counsels were implicated in unconscionable scheme with defendants designed to prevent . petitioner from presenting his Eighth Amendment claim in violation Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 US 238, 244, 88 L Ed 1250, 64 S Ct 997 (1944); Rozier v. ; Ford Motor Co, 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978); First Nat'l Bank of Louisville v. Lustig, 96 F.3d_ 1554, 1573 (5th Cir. 1996); Browning v. Navarro, 826 F.2d 335, 342-45 (5th Cir. 1987)? : 3. Whether the district court, under these extraordinary circumstance, abused its discretion in not invoking its inherent power to award damages, punitive damages, and sanctions in . the amount $1.6 million to deter this type of “outrageous” conduct when the unconscionable scheme involving state defense counsels was done with “evil motive or [with] reckless indifference to the right of [petitioner]” in effect nullifying petitioner’s meritorious Eighth Amendment damages award by fraudulent means. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991) (citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 88 L. Ed. 1250, 64 S. Ct. 997 (1944)) with Smith v. Wade, 461 US 30, 75 L Ed 2d 632, 103 S Ct 1625. : i