Julie Schmidt v. Tacoma Police Department

MEMORANDUM

Julie Schmidt and Leon E. Gerhard appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their action alleging constitutional, disability discrimination, and defamation claims arising from their eviction from their residence due to unsafe conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Ol sen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated in its order filed on December 6, 2010.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel because plaintiffs failed to show exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for appointment of counsel).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order striking the default entered against defendant Galvan and dismissing plaintiffs’…