NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY JOHN BRAULICK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JENNIE DIDIER,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

MIKE BATISTA; CONNIE WINNER; SARAH PHIPPS; DOUGLAS FENDER, Warden; ACEL THACKER; HEATHER SAND; KYLE NASREEN; CHRISTOPHER ROST; JOSEPH BERDECIA; JOSEPH BERDECIA; MARTHA DOBBINS

ODEGARD; WILLIAM PEARSON; STEPHEN GLEIM; TRISTAN KOHUT; PAUL REES; LANCE GRIFFIN ; BRIAN ROBINSON; REGINALD MICHAEL; LORAINE WODNIK; CINDY HINER; SANDY JACKE; MICHAEL FLETCHER,

Defendants. No. 20

- 35278

D.C. No. 4:17

- cv

- 00122

- JTJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAR 16 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 John T. Johnston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 8, 2022 Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, BEA, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jeremy Braulic k, appearing pro se , brought a First Amendment retaliation
claim against Nurse Je nnie Didier which he lost at a jury trial, and a Monell claim
against Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) which he lost at summary
judgment

. Represented by pro bono counsel , Braulick appeals on three grounds: (1)

the district court erred when it den ied his motion for appointment of counsel, (2) the

district court erred when it instructed him not to object during closing arguments at

trial, and (3) the district court erred when it granted summary judgment. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Appointment of Counsel

We review a district court’s refusal to appoint counsel in a civil case for abuse

of discretion. Cano v. Taylor , 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014)

. The district court
may appoint counsel only upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances

. ” Palmer

v. Valdez , 560 F.3d

. 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). E xceptional circumstances do not exist

if the pro se litigant is able to “articulate his claims . . . in light of the complexity of
the legal issues invol ved .” Rand v. Rowland , 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted)
, rev’d en banc on other grounds , 154 F.3d 952,
954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it3 concluded that Braulick was able t o articulate his claims , relying on the quality of
his detailed pleadings and the simplicity of his case.

2. The Closing Argument Instruction
A trial court’s decision to limit objections during closing argument s is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United St ates v. Patel , 762 F.2d 784, 79 4

- 9 5 (9th
Cir. 1985). It was an abuse of discretion for the district court to instruct Braulick that
he was not permitted to object at all during closing argument s because
contemporaneous objections are the method by which litigant s preserve error for
appeal. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 13 4

- 3 5 (2009). But the error was
harmless, as the argument to which Braulick claims he would have objected was a

short, isolated comment he refuted on rebuttal.

3. The Mon ell Claim

To establish Monell liability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had a
policy of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Miranda v.
City of Cornelius , 429 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2005)

. Braulick pointed to three

unrelated occurrences over the course of his three

- year incarceration during which
he missed doses of his thyroid medication. But these “isolated or sporadic” incidents

do not amount to a policy of deliberate indifference. Trevino v. Gates , 99 F.3d 911,

91 8 (9th Cir. 1996). Reviewing de novo, Gordon v. County of Orange , 6 F.4th 961,
967 (9th Cir. 2021), s ummary judgment was proper.4 AFFIRMED

.