(PC) Ruiz v. Gates

Opinion

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-CV-2518-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER S. GATES, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 33, for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is written in Spanish. The Court cannot accept submissions in a language other than English. United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2002) (“It is clear, to the point of perfect transparency, that federal court proceedings must be conducted in English.”). Sister courts in the Eastern District have reached the same conclusion. Rodriguez v. Ruiz, No. 2:20-cv-1525-JPD P, 2020 WL 5995097, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020). Courts sitting in other districts have also recognized that submissions in federal court must be in English. Arteaga v. Cinram-Technicolor, No. 3:19-cv-00349, 2020 WL 1905176, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 17, 2020); Kim v. Chung Sook Lee, No. 18-CV-12230 (CM), 2019 WL 4688692, at *2 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019); Ramirez- Solorio v. United States, No. 1:15-CV-3769-AT-JFK, 2017 WL 2350209, at *1 & n.1 (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2017). Moreover, courts in this district have rejected (or recognized that they are unable to consider) submissions that would require translation from a language other than English. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 5995097, at *1; see Ruiz v. Ehlers, No. 2:21-cv-00146-JAM-JDP (PC), 2021 WL 2313385, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2021); Ruiz v. Mobert, No.: 1:17-cv-00709-BAM (PC), 2017 WL 6886093, *1 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (“As Plaintiff has been previously informed, the Court cannot provide Plaintiff with translated documents, nor will it translate his documents from Spanish into English.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 33, for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to resubmission in English. Dated: March 8, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE