CLARK v. UNITED STATES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.