Robert Mitchell v. Torrie Carder;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TORRIE CARDER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35748
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00083-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Robert Mitchell, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DS/Research 08-35748 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the First Amended Complaint because
Mitchell failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were personally
involved in any deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Barren v. Harrington,
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mitchell’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Mitchell failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
Mitchell’s motion for a continuance is denied.
Given this court’s order on February 25, 2009 denying appointment of
counsel, we do not entertain Mitchell’s March 3, 2009 motion for appointment of
counsel.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --