Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 19 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROBERT N. CRAVALHO,                             No. 21-15299
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08211-SRB-
    MHB
    v.
    PRESCOTT POLICE DEPARTMENT; et                  MEMORANDUM*
    al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 8, 2021**
    Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
    Robert N. Cravalho appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
    his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action
    alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cravalho’s motions
    for reconsideration because Cravalho failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
    See 
    id. at 1262-63
     (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    59(e) and 60(b)).
    We do not consider Cravalho’s contentions regarding the underlying
    judgment because Cravalho failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that
    judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30
    days of judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post-judgment tolling
    motions must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment); Swimmer v. IRS,
    
    811 F.2d 1343
    , 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (an untimely second motion for
    reconsideration does not toll time to appeal the underlying judgment), abrogated
    on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 
    116 F.3d 379
     (9th Cir.
    1997).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   21-15299
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-15299

Filed Date: 11/19/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/19/2021