Ferdinand Reynolds v. Theodore White;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERDINAND REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THEODORE WHITE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15452
D.C. No. 2:95-CV-01451-GEB-
DAD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
California prisoner Ferdinand Reynolds appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after denying his motion
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 08-15452 2
for a new trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to appoint counsel. Agyeman
v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Reynolds’s contention that the district court acted improperly in declining to
appoint him counsel is unpersuasive, given that the court reached the limits of its
authority in attempting to appoint counsel. See Mallard v. U. S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S.
296, 301–05 (1989) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) did not authorize a federal
court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil
case).
We deny the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Reynolds’s appellate brief constituted a timely notice of
appeal. See Allah v. Superior Court, 871 F.2d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1989)
(“Documents that are not denominated notices of appeal will be so treated so long
as they ‘clearly evince the party’s intent to appeal,’ are served on the other parties
to the litigation, and are filed in the court within the time period otherwise
provided by [Fed. R. App. P.] 4(a)(4).”) (citation omitted).
Reynolds’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --