
    James Edward BOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. GAMBERG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16835.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 20, 2015.
    James Edward Bowell, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Scott John Feudale, Esq'uire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and • PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Edward Bowell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, failure to protect, and denial of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bowell’s motions for reconsideration because Bowell failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60); see also Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir.2006) (Rule 60(b)(6) requirements); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir.2004) (Rule 60(b)(3) requirements); Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.1987) (Rule 60(b)(2) requirements).

We do not consider Bowell’s challenge to the underlying grant of summary judgment and other pre-trial motions because Bowell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A).

Bowell’s requests for appointment of counsel set forth in his briefs are denied.

Bowell’s request for publication, filed on January 31, 2014, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     