22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T443,MEMORANDUM The amended complaint was correctly dismissed because Encarnación Aguilar (“Aguilar”) did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Wood-ford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T475,

MEMORANDUM

The amended complaint was correctly dismissed because Encarnación Aguilar (“Aguilar”) did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Wood-ford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.