Jeffrey M. Clark v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY M. CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15793
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00533-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner Jeffrey M. Clark appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging medical
malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15793
counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Clark’s motions for
appointment of counsel because Clark failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See id. (setting forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for
appointment of counsel).
In his opening brief, Clark fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his action. See Indep. Towers of Wash.
v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any
claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta
v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro
se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --