(PS) Trotter v. Sacramento Housing Program

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || 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.

17 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 19 | 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.

21 | 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.

23 || 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.

26 || Dated: October 14, 2022 trot.1552 Ae ¥ L Notrrmann— 98 KENDALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE