Larry Giraldes, Jr. v. Jeffrey Beard , 707 F. App'x 937 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY GIRALDES, Jr., No. 17-16144
Plaintiff - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01780-CKD
v.
SCOTT KERNAN,* Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections, MEMORANDUM**
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding***
Submitted December 18, 2017****
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).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
***
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636.
****
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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law is repealed or expires, the case becomes moot.”).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.
2 17-16144