NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LILLIAN M. JONES, M.D., No. 17-16949
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00015-HG-KSC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HAWAII RESIDENCY PROGRAM, INC.;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Lillian M. Jones, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
her motion to set aside the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus.,
Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’s motion for
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) because Jones failed to
establish by clear and convincing evidence a fraud on the court. See United States
v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443-45 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party seeking to set
aside a judgment on the basis of fraud on the court must demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence an effort to undermine the workings of the adversary process
itself or prevent the judicial process from functioning in the usual manner); Pizzuto
v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 1171, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] party bears a high burden in
seeking to prove fraud on the court, which must involve an unconscionable plan or
scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’s motion for
reconsideration because Jones failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16949