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:T42b,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Leon Hawkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. We cannot review Hawkins’ contentions challenging his jury trial because Hawkins has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hawkins’ motions to appoint counsel because Hawkins did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirements). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T45d,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Leon Hawkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

We cannot review Hawkins’ contentions challenging his jury trial because Hawkins has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hawkins’ motions to appoint counsel because Hawkins did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirements).

AFFIRMED.

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