Erma Johnson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Defendants-appellees, 33 F.3d 58 (9th Cir. 1994)

Before: O'SCANNLAIN and NELSON, T.G., Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, Senior District Judge.² 

MEMORANDUM³ 

Johnson, pro se, appeals from judgment on a jury verdict against her, and from a post-trial order denying her request to reconsider an order which denied her motion to reopen the record. Johnson brought a number of state claims and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from an incident in which county personnel took custody of her and held her for several days for psychiatric evaluation.

The standard for reviewing a jury verdict is whether it is supported by substantial evidence, or by such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. Transgo, Inc., v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 1985).

A motion to reconsider a district court order may be deemed to be a motion to amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court reviews rulings on such motion for abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986).

Because we find sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and find no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings, the district court is

AFFIRMED.