(PC) Ruiz v. Rossi ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-cv-1066 WBS DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 J. ROSSI, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff claims his 17 rights were violated in connection with a rules violation report he received in June 2019. 18 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) 19 Plaintiff seeks the appointment of an attorney that speaks English and Spanish or an 20 interpreter. He claims that his Test of Adult Basic Education (“TABE”) score is 0.0. He further 21 states that he does not understand the rules of court. 22 “‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when 23 authorized by Congress . . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 24 United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The court is unaware of any statute 25 authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. 26 Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff’s motions seeks the appointment of an interpreter that request 27 is denied. 28 //// 1 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 2 | counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 3 | US. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 4 | voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 5 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff's 7 | likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 8 | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 9 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 10 | common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 11 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 12 | counsel. 13 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The 14 | court finds that plaintiff's filings in this action indicate that he is capable of articulating his claims 15 || prose. Additionally, at this stage of the proceedings! the court cannot make a determination 16 | regarding plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the court will deny the 17 | motion without prejudice. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 19 | counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied. 20 || Dated: December 30, 2020 22 3 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 DB I vorders/Pr soner/Civil Rights/ruiz 1066.31 26 27 ' On November 3, 2020, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 9.) Those findings are 28 | currently pending before the district judge assigned to this action.