(PC) Ruiz v. Rojas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 1:22-cv-01345-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING COMPLAINT, WITH 12 LEAVE TO AMEND v. (ECF No. 1.) 13 ROJAS, DEADLINE TO FILE AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT WRITTEN IN THE ENGLISH Defendant. LANGUAGE: DECEMBER 21, 2022 15 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Rogelio May Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed 20 the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 21 II. COMPLAINT WRITTEN IN LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint is improper because it is largely written in the Spanish language. 23 The court does not accept complaints or other case documents written in a language other than 24 English, and the court shall not respond using a language other than English. There are no 25 appropriated funds available to translate court documents from a foreign language to English or 26 vice versa. Spanish translations and interpreters are not required in civil cases such as this one 27 under either California or Federal law. See, e.g., United States v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041, 1044 n.3 28 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 A Pacer search reveals that Plaintiff is no stranger to the federal courts. Ruiz v. Stane, 2 No. 1:22-CV-236-HBK, 2022 WL 1103940, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2022). Motions and court 3 filings must be in English. Ruiz v. Stane, No. 122CV00236HBKPC, 2022 WL 1490416, at *1 4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2022). The Court has warned Plaintiff about this requirement on many 5 occasions. Id. (citing see e.g., Ruiz v. Mobert, Case No. 1:17-cv-709-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. 6 2017) (Doc. No. 18) striking the complaint and directing Plaintiff to file Complaint written in 7 English); Ruiz v. Curry, Case No. 1:17-cv-1454-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. 2017) (Doc. No. 11) 8 directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint because the complaint was written in both 9 English and Spanish); Ruiz v. Woodfill, Case No. 2:20-cv-205-KJM-AC, 2021 WL 606255, at 10 *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021) (reviewing motion for reconsideration and advising Plaintiff he must 11 file pleadings in English); Ruiz v. Woodfill, Case No. 2:19-cv-2118-MCE-KJN, 2021 WL 12 1060141, at *1-*2 (E.D. Cal. March 18, 2021) (noting a number of cases in which Plaintiff has 13 been advised to file pleadings written in English and further providing documentation that 14 Plaintiff falsely alleges he cannot write or understand English)). Historically Plaintiff has filed 15 pleadings and complaints in English at times. Ruiz, 2022 WL 1490416, at *2) (citing Ruiz v. 16 Mobert, Case No. 1:17-cv-709-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. 2017) (Doc. No. 18); Ruiz v. Orozco, No. 17 1:19-cv-0048-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal.) (noting Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in English with 18 no notation the was assisted by another prisoner); Ruiz v Sadler, Case NO. 2:19-cv-147EFBN 19 (E.D. Cal.) (same)). The Court cannot provide Plaintiff with translated documents, nor will it 20 translate his documents from Spanish into English. 21 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be stricken1 from the record as improperly filed, 22 with leave to file an amended complaint written in the English language. 23 II. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on October 21, 2022, is STRICKEN from the record; 26 27 1 When a document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for 28 any purpose. 1 2. Plaintiff is granted until December 21, 2022, in which to file an amended 2 complaint written in the English language; 3 3. Plaintiff shall title the amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” using the 4 case number 1:22-cv-00345-GSA-PC; and 5 4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 6 this case be dismissed in its entirety. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: November 17, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28