Case Name: William JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 691 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 16-15287
Parties: William JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
William JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15287
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed May 30, 2017
. William James, Pro Se
Van Longyear, Attorney, Amanda L. McDermott, Esquire, Attorney, Longyear, O’Dea & Lavra, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 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
William James appeals pro se from the district court's order sua sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with the district court's order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing James' action after James failed to comply with court orders and meet deadlines. See id. at 642-43 (setting forth the factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James' motion for appointment of counsel because James failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.