Hector Zuniga v. William Effler
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-ct-03177-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998879837]. Mailed to: Hector Zuniga. [12-6072]
Appeal: 12-6072
Doc: 22
Filed: 06/21/2012
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6072
HECTOR EDGARDO RUIZ ZUNIGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM EFFLER; SHANE VARNEY; MICHAEL SUTTON; JULIAN CARR;
LAWRENCE THOMAS DIXON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOSEPH CRAVEN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03177-BO)
Submitted:
June 7, 2012
Before KING and
Circuit Judge.
SHEDD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
June 21, 2012
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hector Edgardo Ruiz Zuniga, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Appeal: 12-6072
Doc: 22
Filed: 06/21/2012
Pg: 2 of 4
Gregory Wenzl Brown, Amy Holbrook Hopkins,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
BROWN
LAW,
LLP,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 12-6072
Doc: 22
Filed: 06/21/2012
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Hector
Edgardo
Ruiz
Zuniga
appeals
the
district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
without
prejudice.
Zuniga
contends
that
the
district
court
abused its discretion by denying his motion for appointment of
counsel and by failing to provide him with Spanish translations
of court documents.
In civil cases such as this one, we review an order
denying appointment of counsel for an abuse of discretion.
Miller
v.
Simmons,
814
F.2d
962,
966
(4th
Cir.
See
1987).
Appointment of counsel is proper “[i]f it is apparent to the
district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but
lacks
the
capacity
to
present
circumstance is present.
(4th Cir. 1978).
it”
or
some
other
exceptional
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1153
We do not find that the district court abused
its discretion in this regard.
Nothing in Zuniga’s complaint or
in his abbreviated motion for appointment of counsel would have
made
it
apparent
to
the
district
court
that
he
possessed
colorable claim but lacked the capacity to present it.
a
Nor do
we find that the district court committed error by failing to
translate court documents into Spanish for Zuniga.
Prior to his
notice of appeal, Zuniga never informed the district court that
he could not read the English language.
Moreover, the court had
no affirmative duty to provide Zuniga with translations of court
3
Appeal: 12-6072
Doc: 22
filings.
district
impetus
Filed: 06/21/2012
Contrary
court
of
a
does
civil
Pg: 4 of 4
to
Zuniga’s
appellate
assertions,
the
not
bear
burden
investigate
the
the
plaintiff’s
silence
to
where
the
plaintiff
failed to communicate with the court for over a year and made no
response to two motions to dismiss and multiple notices from the
court.
Accordingly,
We
dispense
with
oral
we
affirm
argument
the
district
because
the
court’s
facts
orders.
and
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?