MEMORANDUM **

Sabin Barendt, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying Barendt’s motions for reconsideration in his action alleging a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barendt’s motions for reconsideration because Barendt failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration). Contrary to Barendt’s contention, the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S.—, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862-63, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015), does not provide grounds for relief. To the extent that Barendt sought injunctive relief related to the policies at Lovelock Correctional Center, those claims are moot because he is no longer incarcerated at that facility. See Di Giorgio v. Lee (In re Di Giorgio), 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To qualify for adjudication in federal court, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.