Sean Connelly v. Brent Freyberger , 692 F. App'x 389 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN DANAHY CONNELLY, No. 15-15726
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02283-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BRENT FREYBERGER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Sean Danahy Connelly appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We review for
an abuse of discretion the denial of motions for appointment of counsel, Palmer v.
Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), and rulings on discovery issues, Laub v.
*
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).
U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Connelly’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Connelly did not demonstrate any exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (setting forth “exceptional
circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Connelly’s “motion
for discovery requests.” See Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093 (“A district court is vested
with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery, and a decision to deny discovery
will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery
results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Connelly’s contention that the
district court ignored his request to amend the complaint.
Connelly does not challenge the district court’s summary judgment for
defendants in his opening brief and has therefore waived any objection to the
district court’s summary judgment on appeal. See Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Mont.
2 15-15726
Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15726