JAROL ANTONIO SANTIAGO
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court denied petitioner Santiago's Rule 60(b)(3) motion seeking relief from a final judgment based on alleged fraud or misrepresentation by the respondent. The court found that Santiago failed to present clear and convincing evidence of misconduct and that any information he relied upon was available before the judgment was entered.
Santiago failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required to prevail on his Rule 60(b)(3) motion for fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, Santiago was not entitled to equitable tolling because the information regarding the pandemic was available to him before judgment was entered, and evidence already in the movant's possession cannot form the basis for Rule 60(b)(3) relief.
[1] Relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) requires proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.
[2] Evidence already in the movant's possession cannot be the basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(3).
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 60(b)(3) provides relief from final judgment due to 'fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.'”
Establishes the standard for Rule 60(b)(3) relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Santiago filed a Rule 60(b)(3) motion asserting unintentional and intentional misconduct or misrepresentation by the Respondent, Secretary …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct Of An Adverse Party cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Petitioner's "Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)3 (sic) for Unintentional Misconducd (sic) or Misrepresentation as well as Intentional” (Doc. 17).
"Rule 60(b)(3) provides relief from final judgment due to 'fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.'" Solomon v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., 154 F. App'x 92, 94 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3)). To prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must prove fraud or misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence. Cox Nuclear Pharmacy v. CTI, Inc., 478 F. 3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007). And evidence already in the movant's possession cannot form the basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(3). Id. at 1315.
Petitioner presents no clear and convincing evidence of fraud or misrepresentation committed by Respondent. And to the extent that he asserts, for the first time, that he was entitled to equitable tolling due to the Covid-19 pandemic, that information was available 1
to Petitioner before judgment was entered in this case.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Rule 60(b)(3) motion (Doc. 17) is DENIED. To the extent a certificate of appealability is required for the appeal of this Order, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 8, 2026.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies to: Petitioner, pro se Counsel of Record
2