LEON HAWKINS V. DAVID CASTILLO, No. 13-16440 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 08 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEON HAWKINS, No. 13-16440 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00771-LJO-JLT v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID CASTILLO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Leon Hawkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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.C. § 1291. We affirm. We cannot review Hawkins’ contentions challenging his jury trial because Hawkins has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged errors. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hawkins’ motions to appoint counsel because Hawkins did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirements). AFFIRMED. 2 13-16440
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
