(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

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. …