Gonzalez v. Bopari et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 7 Motion for Interpreter; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Leave to Amend After Screening as Premature signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 12/17/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CLEOFAS GONZALEZ,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01053-LJO-GBC (PC)

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
INTERPRETER

Plaintiff,
11
v.

Doc. 7

DR. BOPARI, et al,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AFTER
SCREENING AS PREMATURE

12
13
14
Defendants.
15

Doc. 8
/

16
17

I. Procedural History and Motion for Leave to Amend after Screening

18

On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff Cleofas Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

19

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On July

20

16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an interpreter and motion for leave to amend after screening.

21

Docs. 7, 8. As for Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend after screening, Plaintiff’s case has yet to be

22

screened by the Court; thus, Plaintiff’s motion is premature.

23

II. Motion for Interpreter

24

In Hale v. Vacaville Housing Authority, 2010 WL 318375, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2010),

25

the court acknowledged the difficulties plaintiff’s language limitations may pose in the action, but

26

found that plaintiff has not shown that the court has the authority to appoint an interpreter. “[T]he

27

expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by

28

Congress ....“ Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v.

1

MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). The Court is unaware of any statute authorizing the

2

expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. The in forma pauperis

3

statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for court-appointed interpreters. See 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr.16, 2009) (“The court is

5

not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay

6

for such a program.”); Fessehazion v. Hudson Group, 2009 WL 2596619, at *2 (S.D. N.Y. 2009)

7

reconsideration granted on other grounds, 2009 WL 2777043 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 31, 2009).

8

(“[G]enerally, pro se civil litigants have no entitlement to an interpreter or translator.”); Mendoza

9

v. Blodgett, 1990 WL 263527, at *15 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 1990) (“There is no specific statute

10

which authorizes the court to appoint an interpreter in civil in forma pauperis actions.”); compare

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d) (granting a trial judge discretion to appoint an interpreter for trial).

12

In Nguyen v. Bartos, F. Supp. 2d, 2011 WL 4443314, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2011), the

13

Court found that while Plaintiff may have some difficulty with communicating in English, either

14

verbally or in writing, he is obligated to litigate the action in English.

15

In Grant v. Justice Court, 243 F.3d 547, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2000), a pro se litigant

16

appealed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

17

and other federal laws alleging that a state court discriminated against him by denying his motions

18

for appointment of counsel and an interpreter. The Ninth Circuit affirmed for the reasons stated in

19

the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants and concluded that the district

20

court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s “Motion for Accommodation and/or

21

Appointment of Counsel.” See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).

22

In Cisnevas-Garcia v. Shipman, 2010 WL 3491359, at * 5 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010), the

23

plaintiff requested the appointment of a translator to assist him with “the court proceedings,” stating

24

that Spanish is his “primary language.” Although the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status,

25

“[t]here is no specific statute which authorizes the court to appoint an interpreter in civil in forma

26

pauperis actions.” Mendoza, 1990 WL 263527, at *15. At the early stage of the proceedings, and

27

based upon a review of the entire record, the Court found that Plaintiff had sufficient proficiency

28

with the English language to prepare an amended complaint and to pursue his claims in this action

1

in the event that the Court accepts his pleading for filing. See Velez v. Burge, 2009 WL 3459744, *2

2

(W.D. N.Y. Oct. 20, 2009) (denying pro se plaintiff’s request for appointment of an interpreter

3

because the record showed that the plaintiff had sufficient proficiency with the English language to

4

prosecute the claims asserted in the complaint). The Court found that although English may not be

5

Plaintiff’s primary language, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to prepare court papers and

6

to communicate with the Court. Cisnevas-Garcia, 2010 WL 3491359, at * 5.

7

In this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed his complaint, inmate appeals, and motions

8

in English. See Docs. 1, 7, 8. Thus, it appears that he is able to sufficiently communicate with the

9

Court without the assistance of an interpreter.

10

III. Conclusion

11

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for an interpreter is DENIED, without prejudice; and

13

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend after screening is DENIED as premature.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated:
7j8cce

December 17, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE