EDWARD J. ZAKRZEWSKI, II, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BILL MCCOLLUM, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES

11th Cir. | 2009-07-09
No. 07-15930
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
573 F.3d 1210 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2009) Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: This appeal is from the denial of Petitioner’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The motion was seeking relief from the denial of Petitioner’s action for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Briefly stated, the issue is whether the lawyer who represented Petitioner in the section 2254 proceeding was authorized to represent Petitioner at all. Petitioner has contended that the lawyer was totally unauthorized because the lawyer’s ostensible authority had been gained by fraud on Petitioner and later, by fraud on the district court.

The district court found that Petitioner was not defrauded by the lawyer: the lawyer made no material misrepresentations and Petitioner did not rely on the lawyer’s representations to Petitioner’s detriment. In addition, apart from the authority Petitioner vested in the lawyer, the Court independently vested the lawyer with the needed authority to represent Petitioner when the Court appointed the lawyer to represent Petitioner.

The district court has found that no misrepresentation made by the lawyer to the district court was material to that court when it made the pertinent appointment and that the district court did not rely on misrepresentations when the appointment was made. For the reasons set out here and in the district court’s order, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. AFFIRMED. . For further background, see Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 490 F. 3d 1264 (11th Cir.2007). .

Petitioner contends that the district court abused its discretion by finding facts without holding an evidentiary hearing. We doubt an abuse occurred, but we decline to examine the arguments because they are beyond the scope of the COA. See Tompkins v. Moore, 193 F. 3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir.l999).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Zakrzewski v. State (Fla. 2025)
  • Franqui v. State, 638 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2011)
    …urported to represent him was totally unauthorized to do so because the pertinent lawyer's ostensible authority had been gained, at the start, by fraud on Zakrzewski and, later, by fraud on the district court. See id. at 1266; Zakrzewski v. McNeil, 573 F. 3d 1210, 1211 (11th Cir.2009) ("Zakrzewski II") (summarizing the contents of the pertinent 60(b) motion). But in the present case, no claim has been made that the lawyer, M.B., was entirely without authority to represent Petitioner in the section 2254 proc…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw