United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge.
Brian Charles Vaeth, who is self represented, has filed a
39-page Complaint titled “Independent Action To Assess
Whether The United States District Court Has Been A Victim Of
Fraud On The Court.” ECF 1. He has named as defendants
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (the
“City”) and the Fire & Police Employees'
Retirement System of Baltimore (“F&PRS”).
Several exhibits are appended to the suit. ECF 1-1 to ECF
2003, Vaeth has filed several suits and appeals related to
the denial of his disability benefits by F&PRS in 2002.
These include the following: Vaeth v. Bd. of
Trustees, RDB-08-0708, 2016 WL 775386, at *1 (D. Md.
Feb. 29, 2016); Vaeth v. Mayor & City Council of
Baltimore City, WDQ-11-0182, 2011 WL 4711904, (D. Md.
Oct. 4, 2011), aff'd, 471 Fed.Appx. 124 (4th
Cir. 2012); Vaeth v. Bd. of Trustees, Fire & Police
Employees Ret. Sys. of Baltimore City, RDB-08-708, 2009
WL 2487076, (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2009), aff'd, 402
Fed.Appx. 786 (4th Cir. 2010); Vaeth v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore, No. 24-C07009752 (Cir. Ct. Balt.
City, December 13, 2007); Vaeth v. Fire & Police
Employees Ret. Sys. of Baltimore City, No. 24-C03007014
(Cir. Ct. Balt. City, Sept. 29, 2003); see also Vaeth v.
Fire & Police Employees Ret. Sys. of Baltimore City,
No. 24-C00005120 (Cir. Ct. Balt. City, Oct. 16, 2000). In
this case, Vaeth maintains that, in the course of the prior
litigation, defendants engaged in fraud on the court.
moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF 18), supported by a
memorandum (ECF 18-1) (collectively, the
“Motion”) and several exhibits. See ECF
18-2 to ECF 18-7. They maintain that plaintiff's suit
fails under the doctrine of res judicata and for failure to
state a claim. ECF 18-1 at 6-9. Plaintiff opposes the Motion
(ECF 20), and defendants have replied. ECF 23.
has also filed several motions. These are as follows:
“Motion For Discovery” (ECF 26); “Motion
For Leave To Update The Court” (ECF 30); “Motion
For Leave To Update The Court With Information Relevant To
This Action” (ECF 31); “Motion for Leave”
(ECF 34). However, because I conclude that dismissal is
warranted, I shall not consider them.
hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See
Local Rules 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, I shall
grant the Motion.
Factual Background 
facts of plaintiff's 39-page, 117 paragraph Complaint
have largely been described in prior opinions. Vaeth v.
Bd. of Trustees, RDB-08-0708, 2016 WL 775386; Vaeth
v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City,
WDQ-11-0182, 2011 WL 4711904; Vaeth v. Bd. of
Trustees, RDB-08-708, 2009 WL 2487076; Vaeth v.
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 24-C07009752;
Fire & Police Employees Ret. Sys. of Baltimore
City, No. 24-C03007014. Accordingly, I shall provide
only the essential elements of the Complaint.
is a former employee of the Baltimore City Fire Department,
where he worked as a firefighter. ECF 1, ¶ 17. In 1996,
he suffered an on-the-job spinal injury. Id. ¶
18. Although he recovered, he reinjured his spine in March
1999. Id. ¶ 19. As a result of this injury, the
City determined that Vaeth was unable to perform his duties
as a fireman and directed him to seek retirement benefits
from the F&PERS. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied “Line of Duty
Disability Benefits” but was awarded “Ordinary
Retirement Benefits.” Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff
alleges that he appealed and was reinstated to his position.
Id. ¶¶ 22-23.
28, 2002, plaintiff suffered another injury and was
subsequently ordered to seek disability benefits again.
Id. ¶ 24. He sought benefits, but his request
was denied in 2003, after it was determined that his
disability did not result from his duties. Id.
noted, since that time, plaintiff has proceeded with multiple
suits and appeals. Of significance here, in Vaeth v. Bd.
of Trustees, RDB-08-708, 2009 WL 2487076, plaintiff
lodged several claims, contesting the denial of his
disability benefits. On August 11, 2009, Judge Richard D.
Bennett granted defendants' motion for summary judgment
and dismissed plaintiff's suit. Id.
years after plaintiff's appeal failed, Vaeth v. Bd.
of Trustees, 402 Fed.Appx. 786 (4th Cir. 2010),
plaintiff moved to re-open and relitigate the case by
claiming fraud on the court, pursuant to a motion filed under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3). He alleged that a “fraudulent
affidavit submitted by Assistant City Solicitor Sabrina
Willis, completed by Assistant Chief Devilbiss, Jr., was
fraudulent and, more importantly, accommodated by the
willingness of Baltimore City Solicitor George Nilson to
allow that fraud to thoroughly invade this proceeding and
support their effort to prevail against Plaintiff.”
See Vaeth v. Bd. of Trustees, RDB-08-0708, ECF 71-1
plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that: (1) the City
Solicitor improperly concealed plaintiff's employment
file, id. at 4; (2) the hearing examiner was biased,
id. at 7; (3) City officials allegedly told former
Fire Department Chief William Goodwin to terminate
plaintiff's employment, id. at 8; and (4) the
City Solicitor's Office falsely claimed that plaintiff
was not motivated to pursue administrative remedies.
Id. at 8. However, Judge Bennett concluded that
plaintiff's allegations were in “no way connect[ed]
. . . to a degradation of this Court's integrity”
and therefore dismissed the Rule 60 motion. Vaeth v. Bd.
of Trustees, RDB-08-0708, 2016 WL 775386, at *2.
case sub judice, plaintiff again alleges that defendants
committed fraud on the Court in connection with his prior
litigation. See ECF 1. Specifically, he claims that
the City: (1) procured a fraudulent affidavit from Rod
DeVilbiss, former Baltimore City Fire Department Division
Chief of Administration and Support, id.
¶¶ 33-38, 46, 50; (2) falsely claimed that
plaintiff “sat on his rights” and was not
motivated to pursue administrative remedies, id.
¶¶ 42-43; (3) falsely stated that plaintiff had not
exhausted his administrative rights, id.
¶¶ 52-54; (4) regularly withheld evidence to obtain
a favorable ruling, id. ¶¶ 59-66; (5)
failed to introduce into the record an employee incident
report related to plaintiff's injury, id.
¶¶ 67-69; (6) untruthfully claimed that plaintiff
was not happy with the hearing examiner's decision and
chose to return to work, id. ∙¶ 72; (7)
knowingly made false statements during the administrative
process related to plaintiff's disability benefits,
id. ¶¶ 74-76, 83-91; (8) falsely stated
that plaintiff was demonstrating self-limiting behavior at
the time of his functional capacity evaluation, id.
¶ 78; (9) withheld relevant information from the
administrative hearing officer and Dr. Halikeman, a City
doctor who examined plaintiff, id. ¶¶
80-82; (10) untruthfully told another judge of this court
that plaintiff's ...