Montano v. Medical Department Solano State Prison et al

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/10/11 ordering that plaintiff's motion filed on 05/09/11 66 is denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RAUL MONTANO,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:07-cv-0800 KJN P

vs.
DR. SOLOMON, et al.,
Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action

17

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A status conference is scheduled before this court on May

18

19, 2011, at which plaintiff will appear telephonically from his place of incarceration. By order

19

filed April 20, 2011, the court informed plaintiff that it has no funding or personnel to

20

accommodate plaintiff’s request for appointment of an interpreter. The court noted in pertinent

21

part (Dkt. No. 65 at 2-3):

22
23
24
25
26

The authorization and funding for interpreters in the federal courts
is provided solely to individuals appearing in criminal or civil
actions initiated by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1827(a),
(d), § 1828(a). There is no funding or personnel to accommodate
the interpreter needs of civil litigants, including prisoner civil
rights litigants. Accordingly, this court has no authorization to
provide plaintiff with interpreter services for any conference or
hearing that may take place in this action. The status conference
scheduled in this matter will therefore proceed without a
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

court-appointed interpreter for plaintiff. If plaintiff is certain that
he requires the assistance of an interpreter, he may privately
arrange for, and retain, the services of a certified or other
judicially-designated interpreter, for the limited purpose of
assisting plaintiff from the courtroom at the May 19, 2011
telephone conference. Alternatively, for purposes of the May 19,
2011 conference only, the court will consider utilizing, in the
courtroom, the translation assistance of one of plaintiff’s friends or
family members. If plaintiff intends to utilize any of these
arrangements, he should make his proposal to the court no less
than two weeks before the hearing, or by May 5, 2011. Finally,
although the court takes no position on the matter, plaintiff may
attempt to coordinate with prison officials to obtain the informal
translation services of a correctional staff member or another
inmate, to assist plaintiff at the prison during the telephone
conference. Separate arrangements and court approval must be
obtained for any future hearing in which plaintiff is certain he
needs an interpreter, e.g., at settlement conference, at any hearing
on a motion for summary judgment, at pretrial conference, or at
trial.

11
12

Plaintiff has now filed a “Proposal for Spanish Interpreter During Court

13

Proceedings,” which requests that plaintiff be accompanied, during the telephonic conference at

14

San Quentin, by both plaintiff’s inmate legal assistant, Juan Moreno Haines (K23760/2N41U),

15

and “[s]ince Mr. Haines does not speak Spanish, he will need his translator, Arnulfo T. Garcia

16

(C14022/2N38L).” (Dkt. No. 66 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff further notes that, “Plaintiff is housed at ‘H’

17

Unit, and his advisor and translator are housed at North Block. These are separate locations at

18

San Quentin State Prison, . . .‘H’ Unit prisoners are allowed to go into the North Block area, but

19

North Block prisoners are not allowed to go into the ‘H’ Unit area.” (Id. at 3.)

20

A decision on plaintiff’s proposal, which is subject to further logistical

21

considerations regarding the site for the telephone conference, necessarily rests with San Quentin

22

prison officials. As the court previously stated, “plaintiff may attempt to coordinate with prison

23

officials to obtain the informal translation services of a correctional staff member or another

24

inmate, to assist plaintiff at the prison during the telephone conference,” but “the court takes no

25

position on the matter.” (Dkt. No. 65 at 3.) Plaintiff must present his proposal to prison

26

officials, who are hereby reminded that the subject telephone conference is scheduled for
2

1
2

Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion filed May 9,

3

2011 (Dkt. No. 66), is denied without prejudice.

4

DATED: May 10, 2011

5
6

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8

mont0800.trnsltr.req

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