Case Name: Nathaniel HOSEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael B. DONLEY, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-13
Citations: 474 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 11-16826
Parties: Nathaniel HOSEA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael B. DONLEY, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Nathaniel HOSEA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael B. DONLEY, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 11-16826.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 13, 2012.
Nathaniel Hosea, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Claire Truxaw Cormier, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
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 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)(l). 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.