(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

E.D. California

(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

DecidedApril 15, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-01699

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency ((PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 53. In civil 19 cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex Rel. 20 Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of 21 counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining whether 22 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits 23 as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 24 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 26 circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. Plaintiffs’ case is 27 not overly complex, and they have shown themselves capable of making filings with the court. 28 Plaintiffs assert that at a past hearing, plaintiffs requested real-time transcription as a disability 1 || accommodation, and the court provided real-time voice to text transcription, which was not 2 || adequate because it contained errors. ECF No. 53 at 3. Should plaintiffs require disability 3 || accommodations at any upcoming hearings, they are instructed to contact the undersigned’s 4 | Courtroom Deputy, Jonathan Anderson, by phone (916) 930-4199 or by email at 5 || janderson@caed.uscourts.gov. The need for disability accommodations, however, does not 6 || require appointment of counsel. 7 Appointment of counsel is not appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the motion to 8 | appoint counsel (ECF No. 53) 1s DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | DATED: April 15, 2024 ~ Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 53. In civil 19 cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex Rel. 20 Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of 21 counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining whether 22 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits 23 as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 24 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 26 circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. Plaintiffs’ case is 27 not overly complex, and they have shown themselves capable of making filings with the court. 28 Plaintiffs assert that at a past hearing, plaintiffs requested real-time transcription as a disability 1 || accommodation, and the court provided real-time voice to text transcription, which was not 2 || adequate because it contained errors. ECF No. 53 at 3. Should plaintiffs require disability 3 || accommodations at any upcoming hearings, they are instructed to contact the undersigned’s 4 | Courtroom Deputy, Jonathan Anderson, by phone (916) 930-4199 or by email at 5 || janderson@caed.uscourts.gov. The need for disability accommodations, however, does not 6 || require appointment of counsel. 7 Appointment of counsel is not appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the motion to 8 | appoint counsel (ECF No. 53) 1s DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | DATED: April 15, 2024 ~ Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-roberts-v-sacramento-housing-redevelopment-agency-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack