LILLIAN JONES V. HAWAII RESIDENCY PROGRAM, INC., No. 17-16949 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 20 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LILLIAN M. JONES, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16949 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.