
    Pushpinder WALIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-36004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed July 6, 2011.
    
      Pushpinder Walia, Everett, WA, pro se.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Marion Jamieson Mittet, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Patrick R. Donahoe has been substituted for his predecessor, John Potter, as Postmaster General under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pushpinder Walia appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her request for appointment of counsel and her motion to submit exhibits in her Title VII employment action against the United States Postal Service. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.1982). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walia’s request for appointment of counsel because Walia failed to show that she lacked the financial resources to hire counsel. See id. (a plaintiffs financial resources are a relevant factor in the district court’s determination whether to appoint counsel in a Title VII action).

Walia’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial of Walia’s “Motion to Submit Exhibits Referred to in Her Employment Discrimination Complaint” because it is not an appealable decision. See Way v. Cnty. of Ventura, 348 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir.2003) (court of appeals generally has jurisdiction only to hear appeals from final decisions of the district court).

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