(PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 1:22-cv-01425-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Veteran’s Administration of the United States 15 of America & City of Fairfield, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 9, 2023, this court found this case was related to three other cases involving the 19 | same plaintiff, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Order, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Orlonzo 20 | Hedrington has filed a response to the related case order reassigning this case to the undersigned. 21 | Response, ECF No. 29. Plaintiff argues the court improperly related the cases and argues the 22 | order was procured by fraud. /d. at 2-4. Plaintiff invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 | 60(b)(3), id. at 4, which states “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 24 | final judgment, order, or proceeding for... fraud... by an opposing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 25 | /// 26 | /// 27 | /// 1 Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may vacate a judgment for fraud “only when the fraud is 2 | established ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” United States v. Est. of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 3 | 443-44 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 310 (9th Cir.1960)). Here, 4 | plaintiffs unsupported allegations of fraud do not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(3). 5 | Accordingly, the motion is denied. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 29. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: June 28, 2023. 9 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45