Shecka Williams appeals the district court dismissal as frivolous of her pro se civil complaint. The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Williams’s claims. On appeal, Williams argues that the district court erred in dismissing her case prior to trial. The court “shall” dismiss an in forma pau-peris case “at any time” after determining that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Williams also appears to argue that the district court should have appointed her an attorney. She has failed to show exceptional circumstances warranting such an appointment. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

Before this court, Williams’s claims about the lack of a trial and the conduct of the defendants show no error in the district court’s dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Additionally, Williams’s motion for extraordinary relief is likewise DENIED.