Encarnacion Aguilar v. William Kuloloia;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENCARNACION AGUILAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM KULOLOIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16734
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01002-KJD-PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The amended complaint was correctly dismissed because Encarnacion
Aguilar (“Aguilar”) did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
FILED
OCT 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16734 2
93-95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under section 1997e(a) is mandatory and
requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aguilar’s motions
for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aguilar’s post-
judgment motion because he failed to show grounds justifying reconsideration.
See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --