Case Name: Elisandro MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stefanie HUMPHREY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-20
Citations: 512 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 12-15993
Parties: Elisandro MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stefanie HUMPHREY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 718–718

Head Matter:
Elisandro MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stefanie HUMPHREY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-15993.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 20, 2013.
Elisandro Mendoza, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Elisandro Mendoza appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) following the dismissal of Mendoza's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza's motion for relief from judgment because Mendoza failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (holding that the district court must dismiss the complaint, rather than staying proceedings, where a prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.