Case Name: Davy Kelvin POUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N. GRANNIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-15
Citations: 471 F. App'x 801
Docket Number: No. 10-56531
Parties: Davy Kelvin POUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N. GRANNIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
Davy Kelvin POUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N. GRANNIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56531.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 15, 2012.
Davy Kelvin Pough, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Stephen Alexander Aronis, Deputy Attorney General, Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Davy Kelvin Pough, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him out-of-cell exercise in connection with a prison lockdown. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and its factual determinations for clear error, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Pough failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pough's motions to ap point counsel because Pough did not establish exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (reviewing for abuse of discretion and explaining that a finding of exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel requires evaluation of a plaintiffs ability to articulate his claims); see also Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.1998) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).
Pough's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.