MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Daniel Sartain, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants failed to treat his chronic pain condition properly in violation of the Eighth' and Fourteenth *871 Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 891 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim because Sartain did not raise a triable issue as to whether defendants’ chosen course of treatment “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [Sartain’s] health.” See id. at 1058 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim because Sartain did not raise a triable issue as to whether he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated inmates. See Thornton v. City of St. Helena, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sartain’s motions for appointment of counsel because Sartain failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Sartain’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Sartain’s February 3, 2010, motion for an emergency injunction and restraining order is denied.

AFFIRMED.