Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01841/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01841-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 

Interpreter (Doc. 19). Defendants argue that both counsel and an interpreter should be 

appointed in this action because they “Don’t Speak English” and “don’t have a 

Law[y]er.” This case was reassigned to this Court on July 1, 2014. (Doc. 23.) 

 A. Appointment of Counsel 

 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court may 

under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). See also 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable 

to afford counsel”) (emphasis added). “When determining whether ‘exceptional 

Enrique Vargas Acevedo and Jorge 

Luis Amaya, 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Frida Gonzales and Walter Salazar, 

Defendants. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-13-01841-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:13-cv-01841-SPL Document 25 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 3
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 

circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as 

well as the ability of the [litigant] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 

of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 

F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed 

together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 

(9th Cir. 1986)). 

 First, Defendants have not proffered any evidence of indigency in order to merit 

use of the Court’s resources. Second, Defendants have not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 

Defendants have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits at this early 

stage, nor have they shown that they are experiencing difficulty in litigating this case 

because of the complexity of the issues involved. Defendants’ filings in this case indicate 

that they are capable of navigating the proceedings and can sufficiently articulate their 

arguments to the Court. (See Docs. 14, 18.) Defendants are in no different position than 

many pro se litigants. Having failed to show that exceptional circumstances are present, 

Defendants’ request for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

 B. Appointment of Interpreter 

 Defendants further request a court-appointed interpreter in this action. Again, 

Defendants have not proffered any evidence of indigency in order to merit use of the 

Court’s resources. Furthermore, Defendants have not shown that this Court has the 

authority to appoint them an interpreter. “[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of 

an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress ....“ Tedder v. Odel, 890 

F.2d 210, 211–12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 

321 (1976)). The Court is unaware of any authority that permits the expenditure of public 

funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. The in forma pauperis statute 

does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for court-appointed interpreters. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915; compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d) (granting discretion to appoint an 

Case 2:13-cv-01841-SPL Document 25 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 3
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 

interpreter at trial). Further, although English may not be Defendants’ preferred 

language, there is no indication that the difficulties imposed by their language limitations 

preclude them from preparing a defense or communicating with the Court. Defendants 

have demonstrated sufficient proficiency in the English language through their prior 

filings. Therefore, Defendants’ request for a court-appointed interpreter will also be 

denied. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 

Interpreter (Doc. 19) is denied. 

Dated this 9th day of July, 2014. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01841-SPL Document 25 Filed 07/09/14 Page 3 of 3