the Hawaiian Kingdom, by His Excellency Donald Anthony Lewis, Co- Sovereign v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 4.030 Acres plus expanded taking 97- 00571DAE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, by His
Excellency Donald Anthony Lewis, Co-
Sovereign,
Plaintiff,
and
DONALD ANTHONY LEWIS, His
Excellency Donald Anthony Lewis on
behalf of The Hawaiian Kingdom,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 4.030
Acres plus expanded taking 97-
00571DAE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-17569
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00657-JMS-
KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding
FILED
JAN 28 2016
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.

-- 1 of 2 --

Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Donald Anthony Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for relief from judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the denial of a motion to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
Export Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Lewis was not entitled to relief
under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district court did not lack jurisdiction over the
action or the state of Hawaii, and its prior judgments were not void. See United
Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (a judgment may be
set aside under Rule 60(b)(4) “only for the exceptional case in which the court that
rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction” (internal
citation omitted)); United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993)
(rejecting contention that the federal district court lacks jurisdiction over Hawaiian
nationals).
AFFIRMED.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
13-17569 2

-- 2 of 2 --