FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABIN BARENDT, No. 15-16809
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00161-LRH-
WGC
v.
JIM GIBBONS; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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, 135 S. Ct. 853, 862-63
(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 DiGiorgio
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.
2 15-16809