(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. 42, 43.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 17, 2022, and November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed motions seeking the 19 appointment of counsel and an interpreter. Previously, on October 14, 2022, the court denied this 20 same motion filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff presents no evidence that his circumstances 21 have changed since he filed his previous motion on October 14, 2022. Plaintiff again asserts that 22 he does not speak English, has a low TABE score, and does not understand the law, rules of court, 23 or legal 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 has acknowledged that someone is helping him with his case and with this 13 assistance, Plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims. Plaintiff’s excessive force and 14 medical claims, found cognizable by the court, are not complex. The court does not find the 15 exceptional circumstances in this case required by the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion 16 for 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 requests for a court- 6 appointed interpreter shall be denied. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for 9 appointment of counsel and an interpreter filed on October 17, 2022, and November 3, 2022, are 10 denied without prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: December 4, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28