Fraud on the Court Exposed: Federal Judge Vacates Complaint to Block Default Judgment in ADA Case
Veguita, NM – August 2025
In a stunning turn of events, pro se civil rights plaintiff Joseph Lathus has uncovered what appears to be a calculated act of fraud on the court by U.S. District Judge Dominic W. Lanza in the case Lathus v. Round Valley Justice Court, Case No. 3:24-cv-08233. At stake? Constitutional rights, ADA protections, and over $2.6 million in damages from defaulting county defendants who failed to answer the lawsuit.
💣 The Deception: Court Vacates the Only Served Complaint Without Motion
After properly filing and serving his original complaint in December 2024—and after defendants failed to respond within the FRCP 12 deadline—Mr. Lathus was entitled to a Clerk’s Entry of Default under Rule 55(a).
Instead, Judge Lanza, newly assigned to the case, sua sponte vacated the operative complaint (Doc. 1), claiming that a later Second Amended Complaint (SAC) had overtaken it.
But here’s the catch:
The SAC was never served, never issued a summons, and was never responded to by any defendant.
Under well-established law, an amended complaint only supersedes the original when properly served. See:
🔹 Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005): Unserved amended complaints do not supersede operative pleadings.
🔹 Radtke v. Everett, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (E.D. Wash. 2010): Failure to respond to a served complaint warrants default.
This vacatur had no motion, no jurisdictional foundation, and no legal authority—and its sole effect was to obstruct the Clerk from entering default judgment.
🧠 What Is “Fraud on the Court”?
According to Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1989):
“Fraud on the court is a grave wrong that corrupts the judicial machinery itself.”
In this case, the fraud occurred when:
A judge removed a valid, served complaint without cause or motion;
A major law firm—Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, representing the county—benefited from that obstruction;
The entry of default, which would have handed Mr. Lathus a significant victory, was sabotaged.
🧩 Connecting the Dots: A Pattern of Retaliation?
Joseph Lathus, a disabled cancer survivor, father of five, and independent legal warrior, alleges that this act was no accident.
“They saw me as disabled, assumed I wouldn’t fight back, and tried to bury my case quietly,” says Lathus. “But I caught them in the act, and now I’m documenting it for the world to see.”
Lathus has filed multiple motions, including:
● A Motion to Strike the unlawful vacatur;
● A Rule 11 Sanctions Motion against counsel for misrepresentation;
● And now, a forthcoming Rule 60(d)(3) Motion for fraud on the court.
⚖️ Why It Matters
The implications are massive—not just for Lathus, but for pro se litigants nationwide.
This case may serve as precedent to:
Hold judges accountable for exceeding their authority;
Expose collusion between courts and politically connected defense firms;
Defend the procedural rights of disabled and disenfranchised plaintiffs.
“Fraud on the court isn’t a paperwork error. It’s an attack on justice itself,” says Lathus.
🧾 What Comes Next?
If Lathus prevails on his Rule 60(d)(3) motion, the Court will be forced to:
Reinstate the original complaint as controlling;
Grant the long-overdue Clerk’s Entry of Default;
Reopen the damages phase for his unrebutted constitutional and ADA claims.
And perhaps most importantly:
Refer the matter for judicial discipline or bar sanctions against those who orchestrated the fraud.
📣 Follow the Fight
Lathus has vowed to publish every motion, every proof, and every obstruction as public record.
“This isn’t just my fight,” he says. “It’s every disabled, poor, or independent citizen’s fight to be heard in court. And I won’t stop until justice is done.”
📌 Stay updated:
Twitter: @JosephLathus
Docket: Lathus v. Round Valley Justice Court, CV-24-08233, U.S. District Court – Arizona
Fraud on the Court Exposed: Federal Judge Vacates Complaint to Block Default Judgment in ADA Case was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.