Acevedo et al v. Gonzales et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying Defendants' 19 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Interpreter. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/9/14.(CLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Enrique Vargas Acevedo and Jorge
Luis Amaya,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

vs.

12

Frida Gonzales and Walter Salazar,

13
Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-13-01841-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15
16

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel and

17

Interpreter (Doc. 19). Defendants argue that both counsel and an interpreter should be

18

appointed in this action because they “Don’t Speak English” and “don’t have a

19

Law[y]er.” This case was reassigned to this Court on July 1, 2014. (Doc. 23.)

20

A.

Appointment of Counsel

21

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See

22

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of

23

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court may

24

under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to

25

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting

26

Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). See also 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable

28

to afford counsel”) (emphasis added). “When determining whether ‘exceptional

1

circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as

2

well as the ability of the [litigant] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

3

of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718

4

F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

5

1991). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed

6

together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

7

(9th Cir. 1986)).

8

First, Defendants have not proffered any evidence of indigency in order to merit

9

use of the Court’s resources. Second, Defendants have not shown that exceptional

10

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case.

11

Defendants have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits at this early

12

stage, nor have they shown that they are experiencing difficulty in litigating this case

13

because of the complexity of the issues involved. Defendants’ filings in this case indicate

14

that they are capable of navigating the proceedings and can sufficiently articulate their

15

arguments to the Court. (See Docs. 14, 18.) Defendants are in no different position than

16

many pro se litigants. Having failed to show that exceptional circumstances are present,

17

Defendants’ request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

18

B.

Appointment of Interpreter

19

Defendants further request a court-appointed interpreter in this action. Again,

20

Defendants have not proffered any evidence of indigency in order to merit use of the

21

Court’s resources. Furthermore, Defendants have not shown that this Court has the

22

authority to appoint them an interpreter. “[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of

23

an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress ....“ Tedder v. Odel, 890

24

F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317,

25

321 (1976)). The Court is unaware of any authority that permits the expenditure of public

26

funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. The in forma pauperis statute

27

does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for court-appointed interpreters. See

28

28 U.S.C. § 1915; compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d) (granting discretion to appoint an
2

1

interpreter at trial). Further, although English may not be Defendants’ preferred

2

language, there is no indication that the difficulties imposed by their language limitations

3

preclude them from preparing a defense or communicating with the Court. Defendants

4

have demonstrated sufficient proficiency in the English language through their prior

5

filings. Therefore, Defendants’ request for a court-appointed interpreter will also be

6

denied. Accordingly,

7
8
9

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
Interpreter (Doc. 19) is denied.
Dated this 9th day of July, 2014.

10
11

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3