(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill ( 2021 )

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-2118 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. WOODFILL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 30, 2021, the 18 undersigned recommended that defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status 19 be granted, and that plaintiff be required to pay the court’s filing fee in full before this action may 20 proceed. On August 6, 2021, plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days in which to file 21 objections. On August 9, 2021, plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time, stating he 22 had not received a ruling on his prior request. Plaintiff also renewed his request that the court 23 appoint an interpreter. 24 In light of the order granting plaintiff additional time to file objections, plaintiff’s second 25 motion is denied as moot. As to plaintiff’s renewed request for an interpreter, plaintiff was 26 previously informed that this court lacks authority to appoint an interpreter. (ECF No. 49.) 27 “[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when 28 authorized by Congress. . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United 1 || States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The undersigned is unaware of any statute 2 || authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. The 3 || in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for court-appointed 4 || interpreters. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5 || 16, 2009) (“The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, 6 || moreover, has no funds to pay for such a program.”); Mendoza v. Blodgett, 1990 WL 263527, at 7 || *15 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 1990) (“There is no specific statute which authorizes the court to 8 || appoint an interpreter in civil in forma pauperis actions.”); compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d) 9 || (granting a trial judge discretion to appoint an interpreter for trial). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 61) is denied as moot; and 12 2. Plaintiffs request to appoint an interpreter (ECF No. 61) is denied. 13 | Dated: August 24, 2021 i Aectl Aharon 15 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 fruiz2118.den.61 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28