Procedure 12(b)(6). Sussman, proceeding pro se, filed a timely notice of appeal; we affirm the dismissal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, even if Provident had argued an incorrect legal position regarding whether Sussman could perform a “substantial portion” of his work as an opthamologist, it was not a failure to disclose that constituted “a grave miscarriage of justice,” which is required for relief by an independent action under Rule 60(b). United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998); see In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that “non-disclosure or perjury by a party or witness do not, by themselves, constitute fraud on the court”); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1476 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The district court also correctly determined
holding that a  1915a dismissal as frivolous is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion recognizing that a district courts dismissal of an independent action under rule 60b is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion