NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Betty LAWSON, Eszter Freeman, Harold Carlstad, Sherry
Studley, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Richard RAINEY, Contra Costa County, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-15655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 27, 1991.*
Decided July 1, 1991.
Before SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Betty Lawson et al., appeal pro se the district court's order denying their motion for reconsideration of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We affirm.
Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint alleging violations of their constitutional civil rights as a result of their arrests by various Contra Costa county officers during a political demonstration. On May 19, 1989, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.
On June 21, 1989, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment based on Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), a Supreme Court decision that had been announced on May 15, 1989. The time for filing a Rule 59(e) motion had expired, and the judgment was final. The motion did not set forth any grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). Cf. Tomlin v. Daniel, 865 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir.1989) (60)(b))(6) may be invoked when "extraordinary circumstances" prevent an appeal). Because the district court properly denied appellants' Rule 60(b) motion, the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.1
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
The district court denied the motion for reconsideration of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief on the grounds that it was untimely. We may, however, affirm on any basis adequately supported by the record. See Golden Nugget, Inc. v. American Stock Exch., Inc., 828 F.2d 586, 590 (9th Cir.1987)