(PC) Ruiz v. Hubbard ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-2351 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. HUBBARD, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 3, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 27 court notes plaintiff’s objection that he does not speak English and requires a Spanish language 28 interpreter, but he has no right to an interpreter in this civil action. “[T]he expenditure of public 1 funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant’ is proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .” Tedder 2 v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 3 317, 321 (1976)). No act of Congress authorizes the expenditure of public funds for interpreters 4 in civil actions. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 3, 2020, are adopted in full; and 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 8 DATED: September 13, 2020. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 /ruiz2351.804 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28