Georgette G. Purnell v. N. HUNT, Sergeant 16934; LUPER, Officer; GARCIA-PERALTA, Officer; CARTER, Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
N. HUNT, Sergeant #16934; LUPER,
Officer; GARCIA-PERALTA, Officer;
CARTER, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15489
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-01759-JLT-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Georgette G. Purnell appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment
order in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
* 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).
FILED
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15489
discretion a denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Purnell’s motion for
reconsideration because Purnell failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --