Jimmy McDonald v. Greg Clark

MEMORANDUM

Jimmy McDonald appeals the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Greg Clark, Adam Cano, Howard Roberts, and Robert Rodriguez (collectively, “Clark”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDonald’s motions for appointment of counsel. “The abuse of discretion standard requires us to uphold a district court determination that falls within a broad range of permissible conclusions in the absence of an erroneous application of law.” Grant v. City of Long Beach, 315 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir.2002), amended by 334 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.2003) (order). In the context of a motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , the district court must evaluate “at least ... the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and ... the plaintiffs ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ ” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). There were three issues at stake in McDonald’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim: 1) whether ■assigning McDonald to an upper bunk…