Martinez v. Three Unknown Guards of CDCR, et al.

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for Spanish Interpreter; ORDER Directing Defendant to Meet and Confer With Plaintiff 42 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/22/2019. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. ROJAS, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
FOR SPANISH INTERPRETER
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
MEET AND CONFER WITH PLAINTIFF

Defendants.
(ECF No. 42)

16
17

Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and for Spanish

20
interpreter, filed on April 18, 2019. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs the assistance of
21
a court-appointed attorney and a court-appointed Spanish interpreter at the April 30, 2019
22
settlement conference because having a Spanish interpreter at the settlement conference will allow
23
him to understand the full import of the proceedings and having counsel will ensure that someone
24

who is more knowledgeable in the law than Plaintiff can make sure that Plaintiff’s rights are not

25
further trampled on.
26
However, first, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this
27
action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any
28
1

1

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District

2

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain

3

exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

4

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and

5

compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

6

exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must

7

evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

8

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation

9

marks and citations omitted). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be

10

viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

11

Initially, while the Court has screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and

12

determined that Plaintiff has alleged a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against

13

Defendant Rojas, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any evidence establishing that there

14

is a strong likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his deliberate indifference claim.

15

Further, the record reflects that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claim and the issues raised in

16

this case are not particularly complex.

17

circumstances necessary to justify granting a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

Therefore, the Court fails to find the exceptional

18

Second, “the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only

19

when authorized by Congress …” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal

20

quotation marks and citation omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the

21

expenditure of public funds for court-appointed interpreters. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter,

22

Case No. C 09-0575 PJH, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (“The court is not

23

authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay for

24

such a program.”). Further, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts demonstrating that he is entitled

25

to a court-appointed Spanish interpreter as an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with

26

Disabilities Act. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that this Court has the

27

authority to appoint a Spanish interpreter to assist him at the April 30, 2019 settlement conference.

28

//
2

1
2
3
4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and for Spanish interpreter,
(ECF No. 42), is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
The Attorney for Defendant should meet and confer with Plaintiff and inform the Court
whether a language barrier would make the settlement conference not fruitful.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 22, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3