Nieto, Juan v. Hoffman, M.D., Karen et al
Filing
13
ORDER denying plaintiff Juan Nieto's 12 motion for an interpreter for the March 28 pretrial conference. The telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on March 28, 2017 is canceled. Instead, a pretrial conference order setting the schedule for this case will be entered in the near future. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 3/24/2017. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JUAN NIETO,
v.
ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-163-jdp
KARL HOFFMAN, et al.
Defendants.
Plaintiff Juan Nieto is proceeding in this prisoner civil rights case on claims of Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference and state medical malpractice. Now before the court is plaintiff’s
request for an interpreter for the March 28, 2017 telephone pretrial conference. This motion will be
denied.
In a federal civil lawsuit, the court cannot pay for an interpreter. Although the court can help
plaintiff find an interpreter, plaintiff will have to pay the interpreter. If plaintiff cannot afford to pay,
then there will be no interpreter. If plaintiff can pay for an interpreter, he may refile his motion.
Additionally, I will cancel the telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on March 28, 2017
because it would be unfair to plaintiff to make him participate without an interpreter. Instead, the
court will set the dates and include other instructions in the pretrial conference order. If plaintiff or
defendants have concerns about the dates that are set, then they should send a letter to the court
explaining their concerns.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Juan Nieto’s motion for an interpreter, dkt. 12, is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on March 28, 2017 is
canceled. Instead, a pretrial conference order setting the schedule for this case will be entered
in the near future.
Entered this 24th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Peter Oppeneer
Magistrate Judge
2
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?