JUAN D. VEGA, Jr. v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS MANAGER

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN D. VEGA, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
MANAGER,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-36156
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05076-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Juan Vega appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition as moot. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-36156 2
Vega contends that his claims are not moot because his race discrimination
and due process claims have not been adjudicated. Vega’s argument fails because
the Bureau of Prisons has performed the actions sought by Vega in this litigation,
and this court lacks the ability to provide any further relief. Accordingly, his
petition was properly dismissed as moot. See Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951-
52 (9th Cir. 2010) (habeas petition properly dismissed as moot where there was no
legal issue remaining for the court to decide); Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100
F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996) (appeals were moot where administrative agency
had already granted relief sought).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vega’s motion for
reconsideration because he did not identify any new evidence, change in law, clear
error, or manifest injustice in the court’s order. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --