Frederick Bates v. City of San Jose;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16397
D.C. No. 5:06-cv-05302-RMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Bates appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
denying his motion for relief from judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of Bates’ motion to vacate under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), Export Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

(9th Cir. 1995), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of Bates’ motion to vacate
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415,
443 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that Bates was not entitled to relief
under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district court’s prior judgment was not void due to
jurisdictional error or a violation of due process. See United Student Aid Funds,
Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270-71 (2010) (“Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the
rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional
error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the
opportunity to be heard.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bates relief under
Rule 60(d)(3) because Bates failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the alleged scheme produced a “fraud on the court.” Estate of Stonehill, 660
F.3d at 443-44 (“Courts have inherent equity power to vacate judgments obtained
by fraud.”).
We reject Bates’ contentions that the district court improperly corrected its
“judgment,” or that it failed to provide Bates with notice of the hearing on his
motion.
13-16397 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Bates’ opposed motion to vacate the district court’s judgment, filed on
September 25, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-16397 3

-- 3 of 3 --