1, 3 (1st Cir.1986). Appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is not appropriate when a pro se litigant’s claims are frivolous, Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department, 739 F.2d 1109, 1119 (6th Cir.1984), or when the chances of success are extremely slim. Childs v. Duckworth, 705 F.2d 915, 922 (7th Cir.1983); McKeever v. Israel, 689 F.2d 1315, 1320-21 (7th Cir.1982); Ma[c]lin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir.1981). Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir.1985). We find that the district court, which “carefully considered the relevant factors here” and “conclude[d] that exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel do not exist,” J.A. at 174 (Order Denying Appointment of Counsel at 2), did not abuse its discretion. See Reneer, 975 F.2d at 261 (<HOLDING>). Analysis of the district court’s November 15,
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant an opportunity to recall a witness who had already testified and been subject to crossexamination holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners motion to dismiss under 11 usc  707a holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel to indigent prisoner who filed action under 42 usc  1983 against prison officials who allegedly opened and read his incoming legal mail holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials