(PC) Ruiz v. Orozco ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 1:19-cv-00048-AWI-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND INTERPRETER 14 J. OROZCO, et al., (ECF No. 40.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and an 19 interpreter. Previously, on July 16, 2020 and August 13, 2020, the court denied this same motion 20 filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 29, 32.) Plaintiff presents no evidence that his circumstances have 21 changed since he filed his previous motion on August 12, 2020. Plaintiff again asserts that he does 22 not speak English, has a low TABE score, and does not understand the law, rules of court, or legal 23 terminology. 24 I. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 27 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain 28 1 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 2 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 4 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 6 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 7 of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 8 Plaintiff’s circumstances are challenging, but these circumstances alone do not make his 9 case exceptional under the law. Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits because Plaintiff’s 10 case is closed and the court has issued findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion to 11 reopen the case. 12 Plaintiff acknowledges that someone is helping him with his case and with this assistance 13 Plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims. Plaintiff’s excessive force and medical 14 claims, found cognizable by the court, are not complex. The court does not find the exceptional 15 circumstances in this case required by the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 16 appointment of counsel shall be denied. 17 II. REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETER 18 Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint him an interpreter in this action to help him 19 litigate this case. Although the court acknowledges the difficulties Plaintiff’s limitations may pose 20 for him in this action, Plaintiff has not shown that this court has the authority to appoint him an 21 interpreter. “[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only 22 when authorized by Congress . . . .“ Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 23 United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976)). The court 24 is unaware of any statute authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed 25 interpreter in a civil action. The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of 26 public funds for court-appointed interpreters. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter, 2009 WL 27 1033398, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Apr.16, 2009) (“The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for 28 litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay for such a program.”); Fessehazion v. 1 Hudson Group, 2009 WL 2596619, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[G]enerally, pro se civil litigants have 2 no entitlement to an interpreter or translator.”); Mendoza v. Blodgett, 1990 WL 263527, at *15 3 (E.D.Wash. Dec. 21, 1990) (“There is no specific statute which authorizes the court to appoint an 4 interpreter in civil in forma pauperis actions.”); compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d) (granting a trial 5 judge discretion to appoint an interpreter for trial). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a court- 6 appointed interpreter shall be denied. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on October 7, 2022, is denied 10 without prejudice; and 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an interpreter, filed on October 7, 2022, is 12 DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 13, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28