SABIN BARENDT V. JIM GIBBONS, No. 15-16809 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 7 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SABIN BARENDT, No. 15-16809 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00161-LRHWGC v. MEMORANDUM* JIM GIBBONS; et al., 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.