(PS) Trotter v. Sacramento Housing Program

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || CUPID MONIQUE TROTTER, No. 2:22—cv—1552-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 V. (ECF No. 4.) 14 | SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 15 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff requests counsel be appointed for her civil case. It is “well-established that there 18 || is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 19 | 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). The court is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by unrepresented 20 || litigants in federal court, but has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. 21 | There are no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this case, and 22 | plaintiffs claim is not unusually complex and can be reasonably articulated by a pro se plaintiff. 23 || See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, plaintiff's 24 | motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) 1s DENIED. Plaintiff's amended complaint (or 25 || notice of voluntary dismissal) remains due by October 26, 2022. 26 || Dated: October 14, 2022 trot.1552 Ae ¥ L Notrrmann—