Case Name: Michael JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 443 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 10-15559
Parties: Michael JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Michael JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15559.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 15, 2011.
Michael Johnson, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Stephanie Lee Roundy, Riggio Mor-daunt & Kelly, Stockton, CA, Kevin W. Reager, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Michael Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's denial of appointment of counsel, Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson's motions to appoint counsel because the case did not present exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that "[a] finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiffs ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider claims not actually argued in Johnson's opening brief. See Entm't Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.