Julius Lee Jackson v. Sergeant Nuchols;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JULIUS LEE JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT NUCHOLS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16955
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00983-LKK-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Julius Lee Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DS/Research 08-16955 2
motion for appointment of counsel, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th
Cir. 1991), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jackson’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Jackson failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See id.
Jackson does not raise any contentions challenging the judgment, and we
thus deem any such challenge abandoned. See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000,
1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1033 (2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --