Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 2021

Docket21-15299

StatusUnpublished

This text of Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department (Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department, (9th Cir. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Related

Alvin Swimmer v. Internal Revenue Service

811 F.2d 1343 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Jesus Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino

116 F.3d 379 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robert Cravalho v. Prescott Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-cravalho-v-prescott-police-department-ca9-2021.