James Bowell v. R. Gamberg ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          MAR 20 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    JAMES EDWARD BOWELL,                              No. 13-16835
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00397-JAM-
    DAD
    v.
    R. GAMBERG; et al.,                               MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 10, 2015**
    Before:        FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    James Edward Bowell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
    district court’s order denying his motions for reconsideration in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging excessive force, failure to protect, and denial of access to
    courts. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of
    *
    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).
    discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    ,
    1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bowell’s motions
    for reconsideration because Bowell failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
    
    id. at 1262-63
     (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60); see also
    Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 
    452 F.3d 1097
    , 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)
    (Rule 60(b)(6) requirements); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 
    362 F.3d 1254
    , 1260 (9th
    Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b)(3) requirements); Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor
    Sales, U.S.A., 
    833 F.2d 208
    , 211 (9th Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(b)(2) requirements).
    We do not consider Bowell’s challenge to the underlying grant of summary
    judgment and other pre-trial motions because Bowell failed to file a timely notice
    of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P.
    4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A).
    Bowell’s requests for appointment of counsel set forth in his briefs are
    denied.
    Bowell’s request for publication, filed on January 31, 2014, is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      13-16835