ROBERT CRAVALHO V. PRESCOTT POLICE DEPARTMENT, No. 21-15299 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT N. CRAVALHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15299 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08211-SRBMHB v. PRESCOTT POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., MEMORANDUM* 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.