Case Name: Lonnie Lee POSLOF, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-01
Citations: 408 F. App'x 6
Docket Number: No. 09-15605
Parties: Lonnie Lee POSLOF, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 6–7

Head Matter:
Lonnie Lee POSLOF, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-15605.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Nov. 1, 2010.
Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr., Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, 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
Lonnie Poslof, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file an amended complaint after the district court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The district court gave Poslof notice of the insufficiencies of his amended complaint, dismissed it with leave to amend, warned him that failure to amend would result in dismissal of his action, and provided him with ample opportunity to submit a second amended complaint, but Poslof failed to do so. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the action. See id. at 992 (affirming dismissal of action following plaintiffs failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court's management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants favored dismissal).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Poslof s request for the appointment of counsel because he did not establish the requisite exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard for appointment of counsel).
Poslofs remaining contentions, to the extent we are able to understand them, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.