Case Name: Larry GIRALDES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 707 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 17-16144
Parties: Larry GIRALDES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
Larry GIRALDES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-16144
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 21, 2017
Larry Giraldes, Jr., Pro Se
Arthur B. Mark, III, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Scott Kernan has been substituted for his predecessor, Jeffrey A. Beard, as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Larry Giraldes, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing as moot his claims challenging a California regulation relating to certain prisoners' family overnight visits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the question whether a case is moot. Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Giraldes's action as moot because the challenged policy is no longer being enforced due to a change in policy arising from a statutory amendment. See id. at 1510 ("As a general rule, if a challenged law is repealed or expires, the case becomes moot.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Giraldes's motion for reconsideration because Giraldes failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th- Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and listing grounds warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
We reject as without merit Giraldes's contention concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) ("Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of counsel."),
AFFIRMED,
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.