a time-barred grievance is not considered exhausted. Ross, 365 F.3d at 1186; see id. at 1185-86 & n. 7 (rejecting holding and rationale of Thomas). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Tauer’s claims based on the 2004 grievance. Rule 59(e) Motion — 2002 Grievance Turning to the disposition of the Rule 59(e) motion, we review a district court’s ruling on a post-judgment motion for an abuse of discretion. See McNickle v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 888 F.2d 678, 680 (10th Cir.1989) (reviewing a Rule 60(a) motion). A district court abuses its discretion where it “fails even to consider either an applicable legal standard or the facts upon which the exercise of its discretionary judgment is based.” Id.; accord Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the district court abused
holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that under mayfield the exercise of discretion based on a mistaken premise of law can be a failure to properly exercise discretion holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that dnrs exercise of task assigned to it by legislature invariably involved exercise of agency discretion and did not constitute regulation under apa nor abuse of discretion