Kennard Lee Davis v. Michael Yarborough;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KENNARD LEE DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL YARBOROUGH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17210
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00821-LKK-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kennard Lee Davis, 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision
FILED
NOV 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17210 2
not to appoint counsel, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991), and
decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing, Stanley v. Schriro, 598 F.3d 612, 617
(9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s requests to
appoint counsel because Davis did not show the “exceptional circumstances”
required to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Wilborn v.
Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (articulating standard).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s requests for
an evidentiary hearing because it could sufficiently evaluate Davis’s requests for
counsel on the written record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (court may provide rule
for determining motions on briefs); E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l) (in prisoner actions,
motions are deemed submitted on the record unless otherwise ordered).
We do not consider the district court’s summary judgment because Davis
does not challenge it on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --