(PC) Ruiz v. Northern District of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-CV-2025-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLERK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending 19 before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 12, for the appointment of counsel. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil rights cases. See Mallard v. United States 22 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 24 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 25 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the 26 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his 27 own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 28 Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 1 | In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect 2 | to appointment of counsel because: 3 ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 6 Id. at 1017. 7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 8 | circumstances. According to Plaintiff, appointment of counsel is warranted because Plaintiff does 9 | not speak English. See ECF No. 12, pg. 1. These circumstances are common among all non- 10 | English speaking prisoners and are not the types of exceptional circumstances necessary for the 11 | appointment of counsel. In addition, insofar as Plaintiff is requesting an interpreter, Plaintiff is 12 | not entitled to an interpreter because this is not a judicial proceeding instituted by the United 13 | States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1827(a). Finally, Plaintiff has not argued the likelihood of success on the 14 | merits. And seeing as that Plaintiff has not passed the screening stage of the proceedings, the 15 | Court cannot determine the likelihood of success on the merits. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 17 | appointment of counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied. 18 19 | Dated: November 5, 2021 20 DENNIS M. COTA 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28