(PC)Ruiz v. Stane ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00236-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RECALLING AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; 13 v. STRIKING COMPLAINT; AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED 14 M. STANE, ET. AL., COMPLAINT IN ENGLISH 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 10) 16 17 This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff initiated 18 this action by filing a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the 19 Sacramento Division of this Court. (Doc. No. 1). The Sacramento Division transferred the case 20 to this court on February 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 4). 21 On April 14, 2022, the undersigned issued Amended Findings and Recommendations 22 recommending the district court judge dismiss this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to either timely 23 apply to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the requisite filing fee. (Doc. No. 10). The Amended 24 Findings and Recommendations permitted Plaintiff a fourteen-day objection period. (Id. at 1, 4). 25 During the objection period, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 13, 26 16). Accordingly, the undersigned recalls the Amended Findings and Recommendations since 27 Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 Plaintiff’s complaint is written in entirely in Spanish, although the handwritten exhibits 1 attached to the complaint are written in English. (See Doc. No. 1 at 1-10; 13-15, 18). The Court 2 has previously informed Plaintiff all filings in federal court must be in the English language. See 3 e.g. Ruiz v. Mobert, Case No. 1:17-cv-709-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. 2017)((Doc. No. 18) striking 4 the complaint and directing Plaintiff to file complaint written in English); Ruiz v. Curry, Case No. 5 1:17-cv-1454-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. 2017)((Doc. No. 11) directing Plaintiff to file an amended 6 complaint because the complaint was written in both English and Spanish); Ruiz v. Woodfill, 7 Case No. 2:19-cv-2118-MCE-KJN, 2021 WL 1060141, at *1-*2 (E.D. Cal. March 18, 8 2021)(noting a number of cases Plaintiff has been advised to file pleadings written in English and 9 further providing documentation that Plaintiff falsely alleges he cannot write or understand 10 English). Plaintiff has filed pleadings and complaints in English at times. ( Id. at *2)(citing Ruiz 11 v. Orozco, No. 1:19-cv-0048-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal.)(noting Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in 12 English with no notation the was assisted by another prisoner); Ruiz v Sadler, Case NO. 2:19-cv- 13 147EFBN (E.D. Cal.)(same)); Ruiz v. Woodfill, Case No. 2:20-cv-205-KJM-AC, 2021 WL 14 606255, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021)(reviewing motion for reconsideration and advising 15 Plaintiff he must file pleadings in English). The Court cannot provide Plaintiff with translated 16 documents, nor will it translate his documents from Spanish into English. 17 Prison officials have discretion how to ensure that “inmates with language problems have 18 a reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions 19 or conditions of confinement.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2182, 135 L. 20 Ed. 2d 606 (1996). The use of jailhouse lawyers is one recognized avenue available to ensure that 21 non-English speaking and/or illiterate inmates have meaningful access to the courts. Id. at 356-57. 22 If appropriate, Plaintiff may seek assistance at his institution for translation services. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 1. The Amended Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 10) are RECALLED. 25 2. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) because it is not 26 written in the English language; 27 3. The Clerk of Court shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint; 28 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of receiving this order, Plaintiff shall file an 1 | “amended complaint” in English; and 2 5. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in a 3 || recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and/or failure 4 | to prosecute this action. 5 ° | Dated: _ May 3, 2022 lew □□ fareh Zacks 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28