(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC Plaintiffs, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 53. In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. …