Ross

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants assert that the district court abused its discretion in not granting a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to reopen and vacate the judgment in Ross v. State, 189 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court’s ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 , 120 S.Ct. 2402 , 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000), caused Alaska to eliminate its mandatory blanket primary system; in Ross , Appellants had sought and faded to gain that relief in court. Appellants also argue that they should receive attorneys’ fees and costs as tantamount to prevailing civil rights plaintiffs in Ross , under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , as they argue would have been their status had the Supreme Court grant *287 ed certiorari to Ross instead of or as well as Jones .

As the parties are familiar with the facts and complex posture of this case, we review neither here except as necessary.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the Rule 60(b) motion. The terms of Rule 60(b)(5) offer Appellants no basis for relief from the judgment: it has not been “satisfied, released, or discharged”; no “prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or…