Ruiz v. Romero
Filing
36
ORDER Denying (ECF No. 35 ) Plaintiff's Third Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 4/12/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(tcf)(jrd)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,
Case No.: 18cv330-DMS-MDD
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
L. ROMERO, et al.,
Defendant.
14
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
THIRD MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 35]
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
17
with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On April 1,
18
2019, Plaintiff submitted 25 pages of documents including a handwritten
19
request for counsel, copies of Plaintiff’s CDCR Form-22 Requests and Form
20
602 Complaint. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff also submitted some documents that
21
relate to his administrative appeal and his Mental Health Treatment Plan.
22
(Id.). Approximately 15 of the pages submitted are illegible or in Spanish.
23
(Id. at 4-15, 17-18, 22). Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel and
24
appears to allege various errors in his administrative complaint process. (Id.
25
at 1-4). The Court construes Plaintiff’s submission as a third motion
26
requesting appointed counsel. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is
27
DENIED.
1
18cv330-DMS-MDD
1
Plaintiff previously requested and was denied appointed counsel on
2
January 25, 2019, and March 27, 2019. (ECF Nos. 26, 27, 33). Plaintiff bases
3
his third request for appointment of counsel on the same facts as his first two
4
requests. Specifically, Plaintiff requests appointed counsel because he only
5
speaks Spanish and is unable to “litigate or understand [ ] court rules or
6
terminology.” (ECF No. 35 at 2).
7
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack
8
authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases.
9
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain
10
exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary
11
assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,
12
935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332,
13
1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
14
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate
15
the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the
16
plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
17
issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
18
1986). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal
19
education, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a
20
request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
21
The Court continues to be sympathetic to Plaintiff’s difficulties with the
22
English language and lack of familiarity with the legal system. However, it
23
appears he has some understanding of English and “the court does not have
24
the resources to appoint counsel for every prisoner with limited English
25
language and reading skills who files a civil rights action.” Nguyen v. Bartos,
26
No. 2:10-cv-1461 WBS KJN P, 2012 WL 3589797, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20,
27
2012). Plaintiff has provided no new evidence or facts different from his prior
2
18cv330-DMS-MDD
1
requests to demonstrate that he now meets the exceptional circumstances
2
required for the Court to appoint counsel.
3
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff appears to be concerned that
4
Defendants have or will take the deposition of non-party witness Armando
5
Perez. (ECF No. 35 at 3.) As required by the applicable Federal Rules of
6
Civil Procedure, Defendants sought and obtained leave of the Court to take
7
the deposition of Mr. Perez, an incarcerated person. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.)
8
Defendants are permitted to take this deposition under the rules. If Plaintiff
9
would like to identify or contact his own witnesses he may do so to the extent
10
permitted and in the manner allowed by the applicable California
11
Regulations and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P
12
30(a)(2)(B); 15 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139(b).
13
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: April 12, 2019
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
18cv330-DMS-MDD
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?