(PS) Trotter v. Sacramento Housing Program

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CUPID MONIQUE TROTTER, No. 2:22—cv—1552-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER V. (ECF No. 4.) SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff requests counsel be appointed for her civil case. It is “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). The court is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by unrepresented litigants in federal court, but has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. There are no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this case, and plaintiffs claim is not unusually complex and can be reasonably articulated by a pro se plaintiff. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) 1s DENIED. Plaintiff's amended complaint (or notice of voluntary dismissal) remains due by October 26, 2022. Dated: October 14, 2022 trot.1552 Ae ¥ L Notrrmann—