(PC) Sekona v. Hernandez ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ETUATE SEKONA, No. 2:17-cv-0346-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOE LIZARRAGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for a Tongan interpreter. 19 ECF No. 81. For the reasons stated hereafter, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and his 20 motion for an interpreter are denied. 21 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel to represent him in this case. District 22 courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. 23 Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, 24 the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 26 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” 27 exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 28 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 1 | Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court 2 | finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. Notably, plaintiff has proven capable of 3 || litigating his claims to this point without appointed counsel. And the court has previously denied 4 | similar requests for counsel from plaintiff. See ECF No. 59 at 1-2; 21 at 1-2. Circumstances in 5 || this case have not sufficiently changed to warrant reconsideration of that denial. 6 Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint a Tongan interpreter to assist him. He has 7 || previously informed the court that Tongan is his primary language and that his English is limited. 8 | ECF No. 44. Additionally, plaintiff has claimed that he was assaulted in November 17, 2018 and 9 | still has “blood . . . in his brain” which is causing him confusion and dizziness. Id. The court is 10 | not unsympathetic to the difficulty plaintiff faces in litigating this case. Nevertheless, this motion 11 || is denied for two reasons. First, plaintiff has thus far demonstrated an ability to submit 12 | intelligible filings without the assistance of an interpreter. Second, the court is not aware of any 13 || authority which would authorize expenditure of public funds for the appointment of an interpreter 14 | inthis civil action. See, e.g. Loyola v. Potter, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36179, 2009 WL 1033398, 15 | at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (‘The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants 16 || in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay for such a program.”). Thus, this motion must 17 || be denied. 18 Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for appointment of 19 | counsel and for appointment of a Tongan interpreter (ECF Nos. 81) are DENIED. 20 | DATED: November 19, 2019. 21 tid, PDEA 9 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28