
    Darin GASTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carleen ST. CLAIR, Prosecutor, Snohomish County Superior Courts, Defendant, and Snohomish County, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35896.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
    Darin Gaston, Yacolt, WA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darin Gaston, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Snohomish County violated his constitutional rights when two prior convictions were included in the calculation of his offender’s score for purposes of sentencing. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gaston’s action because Gaston failed to allege that any constitutional deprivation occurred as a result of a custom or policy of Snohomish County. See Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1110-11 (9th Cir.2001) (to establish municipal liability under § 1983, plaintiff “must show that (l)[he] was deprived of a constitutional right; (2) the County had a policy; (3) the policy amounted to a deliberate indifference to [his] constitutional right; and (4) the policy was the ‘moving force behind the constitutional violation.’ ” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaston’s motion for appointment of counsel because Gaston failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and the requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for appointment of counsel in civil cases).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     