(PC) Ruiz v. Lucas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-0419 MCE DB P 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 A. LUCAS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed two motions in which he requests the appointment of counsel 17 and for a court-appointed interpreter. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) 18 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 19 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 20 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 21 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 25 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 26 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 27 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 28 //// 1 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 2 counsel. 3 Plaintiff’s motions are written almost entirely in Spanish and are largely similar.1 In these 4 motions, plaintiff states that he does not speak English and has no legal training. (ECF No. 22 at 5 1; ECF No. 23 at 1.) He also argues that, as a result of plaintiff not having an attorney or 6 interpreter, the court made a mistake in determining that he accrued three strikes prior to filing 7 this action. (ECF No. 23 at 1-3.) Plaintiff argues that exceptional circumstances exist as plaintiff 8 does speak or write English and has used the assistance of other inmates to respond to previous 9 orders. (Id. at 3.) 10 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. As this 11 action is still at the screening stage, it is not possible for the court to determine plaintiff’s 12 likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Additionally, plaintiff’s claims are relatively 13 simple, consisting of what appears to be three established constitutional claims against three 14 defendants. (See ECF No. 17.) There is also no reason to doubt plaintiff’s ability to litigate this 15 action without the assistance of an attorney. Plaintiff has, thus far, successfully articulated his 16 claim to the court. (See Id.) Though plaintiff has indicated that he is unable to effectively speak 17 or write English, plaintiff’s previous filings with the court indicate that plaintiff is fully capable of 18 articulating his claim. Given the inability of the court to evaluate the likelihood of plaintiff’s 19 success on the merits, the relative simplicity of the legal issues which appear to be involved in 20 this case, and plaintiff’s apparent ability to articulate his claims, the exceptional circumstances 21 necessary to request the voluntary assistance of counsel do not exist. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 22 1331; Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. As such, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will 23 be denied 24 The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when 25 authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis 26 statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for interpreters. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 27 1 In ruling on this motion, the court has attempted to translate the portions of plaintiff’s motion 28 that are in Spanish so as to consider plaintiff’s motion in its entirety. 1 | As such, plaintiff’s request for an interpreter will also be denied. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for the 3 | appointment of counsel and for an interpreter (ECF Nos. 22 & 23) are denied. 4 | Dated: January 12, 2022 5 6 7 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 DBDB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/ruiz04 19.31+31c 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28