Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sabin BARENDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim GIBBONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16809
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed December 7, 2016
    Sabin Barendt, Pro Se
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sabin Barendt, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying Barendt’s motions for reconsideration in his action alleging a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barendt’s motions for reconsideration because Barendt failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration). Contrary to Barendt’s contention, the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S.—, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862-63, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015), does not provide grounds for relief. To the extent that Barendt sought injunctive relief related to the policies at Lovelock Correctional Center, those claims are moot because he is no longer incarcerated at that facility. See Di Giorgio v. Lee (In re Di Giorgio), 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To qualify for adjudication in federal court, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.