Valdez v. Zhang
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, moved for reconsideration of an order denying his request for appointed counsel and a court-appointed interpreter. The court denied the motion, holding that there is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases and that limited English proficiency does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting appointment or the expenditure of public funds for an interpreter.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Rand v. Rowland and Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., which require a showing of exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel in civil cases. The court found that the plaintiff's limited English proficiency and education did not meet this high threshold, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. The denial of the interpreter request is also supported by the cited district court cases stating a lack of statutory authority and funds. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the lack of a constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases and applies the 'exceptional circumstances' test from Ninth Circuit precedent. It correctly concludes that limited English proficiency alone does not meet this high bar, citing consistent district court authority. The denial of the interpreter request is supported by the cited cases regarding the lack of statutory authority and funding. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the plaintiff's arguments.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO VALDEZ, Case No.: 20-CV-736-JLS(WVG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 DR. ZHANG, 15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 25.] 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks reconsideration of the Order 18 denying his request for appointment of an attorney or, in the alternative, an interpreter. 19 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 20 I. APPLICABLE LAW 21 “There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other 23 grounds). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments 24 of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. 25 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 26 Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 27 1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 28 exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 1 Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance 2 requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and 3 an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of 4 the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 5 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 6 Cir. 1991). 7 The Court agrees that any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance 8 of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in 9 this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 10 exceptional circumstances which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. 11 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when 12 district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well 13 have fared better-particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert 14 testimony”). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion is based on the same reasoning as his original 17 motion: he has limited education and limited English language abilities. However, as the 18 Court explained the first time, limited English proficiency is “not an exceptional 19 circumstance.” Jongpil Park v. Kitt, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54998, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20 22, 2021); Reyes v. Ortega, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165542, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 21 2016); Garces v. Degadeo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40582, 2007 WL 1521078, at *1 (E.D. 22 Cal. May 22, 2007). 23 Additionally, the Court is unaware of any statute authorizing the expenditure of 24 public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. See Ruiz v. Shearer, 2021 25 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41075, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2021); Loyola v. Potter, 2009 U.S. Dist. 26 LEXIS 36179, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (“The court is not 27 authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds 28 1 ||to pay for such a program.”). Accordingly, the Court will also deny plaintiff's request for 2 || an interpreter. 3 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: May 4, 2021 | Se 6 7 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28