Opinion
No. CIV S-08-0149 FCD DAD PS.
June 20, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a second request for appointment of counsel together with a request for an interpreter. The court addressed plaintiff's requests during the status (pretrial scheduling) conference held in this case on June 20, 2008.
Appointment of counsel is not a matter of right in civil cases.See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). Although plaintiff has made a showing of indigency, plaintiff has not demonstrated any effort to secure counsel and has not shown that his claims have merit such that counsel should be appointed.See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (describing factors to be considered in ruling on a request for appointment of counsel). For these reasons, plaintiff's second request for appointment of counsel will be denied.
The district court lacks authority to appoint an interpreter in a civil case except for the discretionary appointment of an interpreter for the taking of witness testimony at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(d). See also Abbas v. Goord, No. 9:06-CV-0648 (NAM) (GJD), 2007 WL 2891631, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2007) ("Plaintiff, as a civil litigant, has no entitlement to an interpreter."); Desulma v. Correction Officer Goolsby, No. 98CIV.2078 (RMB) (RLE), 1999 WL 147695, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1999) ("In general, a pro se civil plaintiff is not entitled to an interpreter or translator."). Cf. Fisch v. Republic of Poland, No. 07 CIV. 7204 (LAP) (KNF) 2007 WL 3120274, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2007) ("No federal rule gives an indigent pro se plaintiff, in a civil action, the right to a court-ordered translation of pre-trial documents."). Plaintiff's request for an interpreter will therefore be denied with respect to pretrial proceedings.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's May 21, 2008 request for the appointment of counsel and an interpreter (docket # 13) is denied.