
    Amir H. SHERVIN and Shirin N. Shervin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 11, 2012.
    Amir H. Shervin, Novato, CA, pro se.
    Shirin N. Shervin, Novato, CA, pro se.
    Danielle Kono Lewis, Esquire, Gregg Anthony Thornton, Selman Breitman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amir H. Shervin and Shirin N. Shervin appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging excessive force, false arrest, and unlawful entry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 863 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Contrary to the Shervins’ contention that they did not have an opportunity to oppose summary judgment, the record shows that the Shervins filed an opposition, which was considered by the district court in granting summary judgment.

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

The Shervins’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

The Shervins’ motion for leave to file an addendum to their opening brief, filed on March 9, 2012, and motion for declaratory and injunctive relief, received on June 1, 2012, are denied.

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