Sanchez v. Ward

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 24, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00361
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, Case No. 3:21-CV-0361-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION FOR INTERPRETER AND DENYING 6 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

7 MARIA WARD, et al., [ECF No. 3]

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the court is Plaintiff Alejandro Sanchez’s (“Sanchez”) motion for an 11 interpreter or, in the alternative, appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). In the motion, 12 Sanchez claims not to comprehend “fluent English” and thus relies on the help of other 13 “jail house lawyers” who are fluent in English and Spanish. (Id.) 14 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. E.g., Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion reinstated in pertinent part, 154 15 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The provision in 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) gives 16 the court discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 17 counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see, e.g., Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 18 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc.) While the decision to request counsel lies within the discretion 19 of the district court, the court may exercise this discretion to request counsel only under 20 “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to evaluate (1) the 22 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his 23 claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. 24 Id. (quoting Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither factor 25 is dispositive, and both factors must be considered before a court decides. Id. The 26 difficulties faced by every litigant proceeding pro se does not qualify as an exceptional 27 circumstance. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). While 4 a benefit does not rise to the level of “exceptional circumstances.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 2) 1525. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he is unable to articulate his claims due 3| to their complexity. /d. 4 Exceptional circumstances do not exist in this instance. Sanchez’s case is limited 5| toan Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim 6 against four Defendants. (ECF No. 4.) Sanchez alleges a claim for failure to protect 7 against Defendants related to an alleged sexual assault and a claim for retaliation related 8 grievances filed thereafter related to the matter. (/d.) These claims do not involve 9 complex issues, nor will they require expert assistance to understand.

10 Moreover, throughout the pendency of this action, Sanchez has demonstrated that the ability to articulate claims to the Court. While Sanchez claims not to be able to " speak “fluent English,” this is unexceptional compared to many prisoner civil rights cases. Because Sanchez has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the court DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). 4 Sanchez’s motion for an interpreter is GRANTED for the limited purpose of 15 mediation only. (ECF No. 3.) 16 DATED: March 24, 2022 . 17 13 UNITED on MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 gy