Case Name: Julius Lee JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant NUCHOLS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 360 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 08-16955
Parties: Julius Lee JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant NUCHOLS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
Julius Lee JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant NUCHOLS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16955.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
Julius Lee Jackson, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
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 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, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1033, 173 L.Ed.2d 301 (2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.