Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Encarnacion AGUILAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William KULOLOIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-16734.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2010.
    Encarnación Aguilar, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
    
      Jill Carol Davis, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for DefendantsAppellees.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The amended complaint was correctly dismissed because Encarnación Aguilar (“Aguilar”) did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Wood-ford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under section 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aguilar’s motions for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aguilar’s post-judgment motion because he failed to show grounds justifying reconsideration. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

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