(PC) Ruiz v. Rojas ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 1:22-cv-01345 JLT GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (MOTION TO 13 v. REOPEN CASE) (Doc. 25) 14 ROJAS, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 Defendant. REQUESTS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND AN INTERPRETER 16 (Doc. 25 at 1) 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in October 2022. (Docs. 1, 2.) The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. Judgment was entered, and the matter was closed on August 21, 2023. (Docs. 23, 24.) 21 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion which requests the appointment of counsel and an 22 interpreter as well as a motion to reopen this case. (Doc. 25.) The Court construes the filing as a 23 Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons 24 stated below, the motion will be denied, and the requests for the appointment of counsel and an 25 interpreter will also be denied as moot. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 A. Relevant Facts 28 On August 21, 2023, this matter was dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. 1 (Docs. 21, 23, 24 (findings and recommendations, judgment, and order).) Specifically, the case 2 was dismissed because after twice ordering Plaintiff to file his complaint in English, Plaintiff 3 failed to do so. (See Docs. 10, 16 (orders directing Plaintiff to file complaint in English); see also 4 Docs. 1, 13, 18 (Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaints primarily filed in Spanish).) 5 B. Motion for Reconsideration 6 On September 8, 2023, less than three weeks after this matter had been dismissed, 7 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 25.) In support of it, Plaintiff states 8 that he has needed legal assistance in the past; that he has vision problems which make it difficult 9 for him to continue to communicate with the Court, and that he has cancer. He also states that his 10 health has impeded his ability to work. (See id. at 1.) As a result, Plaintiff also requests that the 11 Court appoint him counsel and an interpreter to assist him with this case. (See id.) 12 II. APPLICABLE LAW 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a litigant to file a motion for relief from a 14 final judgment or order for several reasons, including, but not limited to: mistake, inadvertence, 15 surprise, excusable neglect, or any other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16 60(b)(1), (6). A court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 17 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Neither Plaintiff’s stated health problems, nor his asserted modest command of the 20 English language justify a change in this Court’s decision to dismiss this case. To date, neither of 21 these alleged impediments has prevented Plaintiff from filing this matter or from understanding 22 what the Court has asked of him throughout these proceedings. 23 For example, the Court notes for the record that since this case was commenced, Plaintiff 24 has filed an in forma pauperis application; an appointment of counsel request; a motion for an 25 extension of time; a change of address form, and the instant motion, all of which, have been 26 presented in English. (See Docs. 2, 11, 14, 19, 25, respectively.) This indicates that Plaintiff 27 and/or the individuals he states assisted him during these proceedings had a satisfactory 28 understanding both of what was occurring in this case and of what was required of Plaintiff at 1 | each stage of it. The fact that Plaintiff has filed thirty-one cases in this district since 2017 further 2 || supports the Court’s decision to dismiss this matter for failure to comply with its order to file the 3 | complaint in English.' 4 Finally, as this Court has recently informed Plaintiff in a different matter, “[t]here are no 5 | statutory provisions which authorize district courts to appoint an interpreter in a civil rights action 6 | that is initiated by an indigent state prisoner.” Ruiz v. Stane, No. 1:22-cv-00236 HBK (PC), 2023 7 | WL 3324750, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) (brackets added) (internal quotation marks omitted) 8 | (quoting Sekona vy. Liazarraga, 2018 WL 11304911, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2018)); see Ruiz v 9 | Woodfill, No. 2:19-cv-02118 MCE KJN, 2021 WL 1060141, at *1-*2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021) 10 | (noting other cases filed by Plaintiff which demonstrate he has ability to communicate in 11 | English). 12 For these reasons, Plaintiff has not shown that justice requires that he be given relief from 13 | this Court’s final judgment in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Therefore, the Motion for 14 | Reconsideration will be denied. As a result, Plaintiff's requests for the appointment of counsel 15 | and for an interpreter within the motion (see Doc. 25 at 1) are not reached, and they will be 16 || denied as moot. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 25) is DENIED. 18 2. Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel and for the appointment of an 19 || interpreter made within the Motion for Reconsideration (see Doc. 25 at 1) are DENIED as moot. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _December 12, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 | -—T_ ' A court may take judicial notice of its own records. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 28 | 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).