22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d9,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Louis James appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment dismissing James’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with the proceedings which led to his criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’s motions for reconsideration because James failed to establish grounds for relief under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing circumstances warranting reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) and 60(b)). Because James did not timely appeal from the district court’s judgment, the merits of the underlying judgment are not before the court. See Browder v. Dir., Dept of Corr., 434 U.S. 257 , 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556 , 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50b,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Louis James appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment dismissing James’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with the proceedings which led to his criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’s motions for reconsideration because James failed to establish grounds for relief under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing circumstances warranting reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) and 60(b)).

Because James did not timely appeal from the district court’s judgment, the merits of the underlying judgment are not before the court. See Browder v. Dir., Dept of Corr., 434 U.S. 257 , 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556 , 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

AFFIRMED.

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