Whether the Ninth Circuit's decision imposes an erroneous and unjustifiable standard for 'Fraud Upon The Court'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners, both Asian Pacific Americans, are ~ working in San Francisco Juvenile Hall for many years. Due to continuous and on-going discrimination, , harassment, intimidation, and retaliation, petitioners filed their current lawsuit [USDC No: cv08-04702] in October, 2008, in pro se. The district court denied petitioners requests to file amended complaints with additional allegations. The related case of [USDC No: ; cv10-04641] was filed in October, 2010. While the current case was dismissed by the district court in 2012, it was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, and denied by this Court. At that time, petitioners knew of some of respondents’ conduct during the litigation process that they reasonably believe constituted misconduct. Petitioner filed a related case in October, 2010, [USDC No: cv10-04838] dismissed by the district court for having “no standing”. During later proceedings in the related case [USDC No: cv10-04641] around 2015, petitioners learned of additional improprieties by respondents with conduct that confirmed the _ respondents’ misconduct rose to a level constituting “fraud upon the court”. In 2016, petitioners then moved to set aside the federal court judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) for “fraud on the court.” The district court denied petitioners’ “motion for reconsideration as untimely and meritless, but the district Court did acknowledge and stated that the se only remaining ground for relief that is not expressly time-barred is Rule 60(d)(3), which reflects the court’s inherent power to “set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court”. The Ninth Circuit then affirmed. Page 3 The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision imposes an erroneous and unjustifiable standard for “Fraud Upon The Court”? 2. Whether granting the writ generates an issue of exceptional importance to “public interest”? 3. Whether a “public employee”, as witnesses in this case a “California Sworn Peace Officer” , intentionally provided false information including supplemental filings to the court rising to a level constituting “fraud upon the court”? [Short answer consideration: see Levander v. Prober : (In re Levander), 180 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 1999) (perjury committed by a single non-party witness was so detrimental to the entire bankruptcy proceeding that it was held to be fraud on the court)] Page 4