eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-02

Joseph Gaines v. Mary Henry ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
FEB 22 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH GAINES,                                  No. 20-15692
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00770-MMD-
CLB
v.
MARY HENRY, Culinary Manager at LCC;            MEMORANDUM*
ADAMSON, Medical Doctor at LCC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Joseph Gaines appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging federal and state law violations. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gaines’s action because it was clear
from the face of Gaines’s complaint that Gaines failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Albino v. Baca,
    747 F.3d 1162
    ,
1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of
the complaint, a district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim).
Gaines’s challenge to the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunctive relief is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v.
Madigan,
    954 F.2d 1441
    , 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have
been decided, reversal of denial of preliminary injunctive relief would have no
practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaines’s post-
judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment because Gaines failed to
demonstrate any grounds for 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 explaining circumstances warranting reconsideration).
Gaines’s request for publication, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                   20-15692