Valdez v. Zhang

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RICARDO VALDEZ, Case No.: 20-CV-736-JLS(WVG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 25.] 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks reconsideration of the Order 18 denying his request for appointment of an attorney or, in the alternative, an interpreter. 19 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 21 “There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other 23 grounds). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments 24 of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. 25 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 26 Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 27 1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 28 exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 1 Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance 2 requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and 3 an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of 4 the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 5 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 6 Cir. 1991). 7 The Court agrees that any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance 8 of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in 9 this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 10 exceptional circumstances which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. 11 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when 12 district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well 13 have fared better-particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert 14 testimony”). 16 Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion is based on the same reasoning as his original 17 motion: he has limited education and limited English language abilities. However, as the 18 Court explained the first time, limited English proficiency is “not an exceptional 19 circumstance.” Jongpil Park v. Kitt, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54998, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20 22, 2021); Reyes v. Ortega, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165542, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 21 2016); Garces v. Degadeo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40582, 2007 WL 1521078, at *1 (E.D. 22 Cal. May 22, 2007). 23 Additionally, the Court is unaware of any statute authorizing the expenditure of 24 public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. See Ruiz v. Shearer, 2021 25 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41075, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2021); Loyola v. Potter, 2009 U.S. Dist. 26 LEXIS 36179, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (“The court is not 27 authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds 28 1 ||to pay for such a program.”). Accordingly, the Court will also deny plaintiff's request for 2 || an interpreter. 3 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice. 5 || Dated: May 4, 2021 | Se 6 7 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28