Michael Johnson v. D. Sisto
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of appointment of counsel, Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s motions to appoint counsel because the case did not present exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that “[a] finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiffs ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider claims not actually argued in Johnson’s opening brief. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211 , 1217 (9th Cir.1997).