Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Michael R. Atraqchi v. USA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-13701
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13701 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-13701
Non-Argument Calendar

MICHAEL R. ATRAQCHI,
IRENE S. ATRAQCHI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF FLORIDA,
RAMEZ ANDRAWIS,
MASEEHA KHALEEL,
JOHN AND JANE DOE,
all U.S. Adult Persons,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00935-SDM-AEP

USCA11 Case: 25-13701 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13701

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael and Irene Atraqchi, proceeding
pro se, appeal the district court’s order denying their Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (d)(3) motion to reopen the case
based on newly discovered evidence and fraud. On appeal, the At-
raqchis argue that the district court abused its discretion by dismiss-
ing their motion because they presented evidence that was previ-
ously unavailable and undermined the factual basis of the court’s
original dismissal. After careful review, we affirm.
We generally review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for
an abuse of discretion. Galbert v. W. Caribbean Airways, 715 F.3d
1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2013). A district court abuses its discretion
when it “applies an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in an
unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper procedures in
making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly
erroneous.” Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
2015) (quotation marks omitted). The purpose of a Rule 60(b) mo-
tion is to permit the court to reconsider matters to “correct obvious
errors or injustices and so perhaps obviate the laborious process of
appeal.” Carter ex rel. Carter v. United States, 780 F.2d 925, 928 (11th
Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).
As relevant here, a Rule 60(b)(2) motion allows a party to be
relieved from a judgment because of newly discovered evidence
that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). A Rule 60(b)(2) motion must be made “no more
USCA11 Case: 25-13701 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-13701 Opinion of the Court 3

than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of
the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Here, to the extent that
the Atraqchis sought relief under Rule 60(b)(2), their motion is un-
timely because they filed it on September 10, 2025, well over one
year after the May 4, 2022 judgment.
A motion filed under Rule 60(d)(3) allows a court, notwith-
standing Rule 60’s other avenues for relief from judgment, to “set
aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).
“Where relief from a judgment is sought for fraud on the court,
the fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence.”
Booker v. Duer, 825 F.2d 281, 283 (11th Cir. 1987). Conclusory
statements of the existence of fraud, unaccompanied by clear and
convincing probative facts, are insufficient. Id. at 283–84. Here, to
the extent that the Atraqchis sought relief under Rule 60(b)(3),
their allegations of fraud were conclusory and provided no clear
and convincing probative facts of the fraud. Thus, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Atraqchis’ motion
to reopen.1
AFFIRMED.

1 In the Atraqchis’ brief, they conclusory state that the district court should

have held a hearing on their motion and that their due process rights were
violated. Even though Atraqchis are pro se, they are still required to ade-
quately brief the issues and not simply make passing references to an issue.
Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004); Timson
v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, they have abandoned that
issue. But even if they had not abandoned it, Rule 60 does not require a hear-
ing nor have they provided any authority establishing otherwise.