MEMORANDUM **
Defendant Daniel O. Escamilla appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in plaintiff Isaac Garcias § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Escamillas Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration because Escamilla failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1262-63 (discussing when reconsideration is appropriate).
We reject as meritless Escamillas contentions that the district court lacked original jurisdiction, or that plaintiffs state law claims against Escamilla should not have been tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c), (d) (providing circumstances under which district courts may assert or decline supplemental jurisdiction, and tolling state statutes of limitations for “any claim” asserted under this statute “while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period”). Escamillas reliance on Morris v. Giovan, 225 Ariz. 582, 242 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) is misplaced.
AFFIRMED.