Nathaniel Hosea v. MICHAEL B. DONLEY, Secretary of the US Air Force

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NATHANIEL HOSEA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL B. DONLEY, Secretary of the
US Air Force,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-16826
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-02892-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Nathaniel Hosea appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion
for appointment of counsel in his employment discrimination action under 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-16. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
FILED
JUL 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16826 2
an abuse of discretion, Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 417 (9th Cir.
1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hosea’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Hosea failed to establish that he satisfied all three
factors for appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). See id. at 416-
17 (listing factors for court to consider and affirming denial of motion to appoint
counsel in employment discrimination action).
Hosea’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Hosea’s letter requesting counsel is construed as a motion for appointment
of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and, so construed, is denied. See Palmer
v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth “exceptional
circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --