Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02251/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

WO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Denijal Hrbenic,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02251-PHX-JAT (DMF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is an appeal from Magistrate Judge Fine’s July 18, 2016, 

Order denying Petitioner Denijal Hrbenic’s Motion for Interpreter Services. (Doc. 29). 

The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s motion on two grounds, finding that (1) there 

was no legal basis entitling Petitioner to an interpreter at this stage of the proceedings, 

and that (2) Respondents had agreed to provide Petitioner with a Bosnian interpreter if he 

filed the correct paperwork. (Id. at 2-3). Having reviewed Petitioner’s filing, the Court 

now rules on the appeal. 

I.

 For purposes of adjudicating the pending appeal, the Court need not set forth the 

factual allegations underlying Petitioner’s filing for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is 

sufficient to note that on August 1, 2016, Petitioner appealed from the Magistrate Judge’s 

Order denying his motion to appoint a Bosnian interpreter, asserting generally that he has 

Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a constitutional right to an interpreter in these proceedings.1(Doc. 31).

II.

“A district court may refer a pretrial matter to a magistrate to ‘hear and 

determine,’ and may review the magistrate’s order ‘where it has been shown that the 

magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Title 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A) (2012); Barten v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CZV-12-0399-TUCCKJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133569, at *10 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (quoting Doe v. 

Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 

2010)). Stated in other terms, the Court reviews an appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s 

decision “for clear error.” Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 

1990) (citations omitted). Under this standard of review, the Magistrate Judge’s decision 

is “not subject to de novo determination,” and the Court “may not simply substitute its 

judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 

F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Clear error is present when the Court is “left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 

532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001). 

III.

“It is well settled that habeas corpus is a civil proceeding.” Browder v. Director, 

Dep’t of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 269 (1978) (citations omitted). Petitioner 

points to no case from the United States Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals recognizing the right to a court-appointed interpreter in a civil proceeding. 

Indeed, as a general matter, the Supreme Court has not recognized a constitutional right 

to a court-appointed interpreter. United States v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041, 1043 n.3 (9th Cir. 

 

1

Petitioner’s appeal also asks the Court to “go further” than reversing the decision 

of the Magistrate Judge and “declare the denial of access to a law library” and the denial 

of the ability to use a “jailhouse lawyer” unconstitutional. (Doc. 31 at 5). Petitioner’s 

requests are outside the scope of the appeal and will not be considered. 

Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2003) (citing Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86, 91 (1907)). While the Ninth Circuit 

has found “that a constitutional right to an interpreter exists in certain situations,” id. at 

1042-1043, 1043 n.3 (citations omitted), these situations arise when a criminal 

defendant’s inability to communicate in English interferes with his Fifth and Sixth 

Amendment rights, or where the defendant lacks the ability to understand the 

proceedings. See Aljibory v. Ryan, No. CV-13-00675-PHX-SRB (SPL), 2014 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 33464, at *21-22 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2014) (citations omitted). None of the 

aforementioned circumstances are present in the instant action. 

Turning to applicable statutory authority, nothing in the Court Interpreters Act, 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1827 (2012), requires that the Court appoint an interpreter at this stage 

of the proceedings. The Court is unaware of any other statutory authority that supports 

Petitioner’s argument. As the Magistrate Judge noted, there is no current “statute 

authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil 

action.” Gonzalez v. Bopari, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178925, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 

2012). In sum, nothing suggests that the Magistrate Judge committed “clear error” where 

she found that “[t]here is no legal basis on which the federal court should appoint an 

interpreter for this case at this time.” (Doc. 29 at 3).

 Moving beyond the firmity and soundness of the Magistrate Judge’s Order, 

Respondents swore by affidavit that they can “provide the necessary Bosnian translator to 

work with the contract paralegal during her visits with Petitioner Denijal Hrgenic 

regarding CV 14-2251-PHX and related cases.” (Doc. 29 at 3). Petitioner objects, arguing 

that the at-issue affidavit stated that “a certified/qualified paralegal can be obtained,” but 

did not indicate that “an interpreter” could be obtained for him. (Doc. 31 at 3). Petitioner 

is mistaken. The affidavit of Julia Erwin, the Legal Access Monitor for the Arizona 

Department of Corrections, swears that her “office can provide the necessary Bosnian 

translator to work with the contract paralegal” on Petitioner’s cases. (Doc. 27-1 at 2 

(emphasis added)). Respondents further swore that as long as Petitioner submitted Inmate 

Letter, Form 916-1(e)—which Respondents attached to their opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion—they would be able to provide Petitioner with a Bosnian interpreter. (Id.).

 In light of the aforementioned, the Court finds nothing to indicate that “clear 

error” occurred. The Magistrate Judge explicitly declined to “make any finding” with 

respect to whether Petitioner “speaks only or primarily a language other than the English 

language.” (Doc. 29 at 3). The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s application without 

prejudice, re-urging him to request an interpreter if this action proceeds to an evidentiary 

hearing. Respondents swore that so long as Petitioner submits the proper request form, 

they would be able to provide Petitioner with a Bosnian interpreter, the relief he seeks. 

Respondents provided Petitioner with a copy of the pertinent form. And Petitioner has 

failed to point to any authority establishing that he is entitled to an interpreter as a matter 

of law. See Orozco v. Ryan, No. CV-10-1514-PHX-JAT, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93712, 

at *6 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2010) (denying motion for interpreter with permission to re-urge 

if an evidentiary hearing is held in the matter). 

 For these reasons, Petitioner’s appeal will be denied, and the Magistrate Judge’s 

Order will be affirmed.

III.

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal is DENIED, (Doc. 31), and Magistrate 

Judge Fine’s Order, (Doc. 29), is AFFIRMED.

Dated this 16th day of August, 2016.

Case 2:14-cv-02251-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/17/16 Page 4 of 4