Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00391-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chen Hale
Plaintiff
Vacaville Housing Authority
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 1

302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and was reassigned by an order entered February 9, 2010. (Dkt. No. 45.) 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHEN HALE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-00391 JAM KJN PS

vs.

VACAVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Presently before this court is plaintiff’s motion for a court appointed attorney and

an interpreter. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Chen Hale, a pro se litigant, filed her complaint in this action on

December 15, 2008 in the Northern District of California. (Dkt. No. 1) On February 9, 2009, the

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney, United States District Judge of the Northern District of California,

transferred this case to the Eastern District of California, finding that venue appears proper

herein. (Dkt. No. 17) 

Within both the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of

Case 2:09-cv-00391-JAM-KJN Document 50 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 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

2

California, plaintiff, in the formative stage of this action, filed four motions to appoint counsel. 

((1) 12/22/2008—Request for Appointment of Legal Counsel (Dkt. No. 4); (2) 12/22/2008—

Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 5); (3) 1/15/2009—Request for Appointment of

Legal Counsel (Dkt. No. 12); and (4) 4/10/200—Request for Appointment of Legal Counsel. 

(Dkt. No. 21)). 

On May 13, 2009, this court issued an order (1) confirming that venue is proper in

the Eastern District; (2) granting plaintiff’s in forma pauperis request; (3) granting plaintiff leave

to file an amended complaint; (4) and denying plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel,

finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to authorize

court appointed counsel in a civil case. The court noted that plaintiff’s filings are “succinct and

articulate, and plaintiff has a demonstrated capability of contacting the court in order to move her

case along,” and found that this case did not warrant the extraordinary step of appointing counsel. 

(Dkt. No. 24 at 4.)

On May 27, 2009, two weeks after this court’s ruling denying the appointment of

counsel, plaintiff filed another “Request for Appointment of Legal Counsel.” (Dkt. No. 25.) 

Plaintiff simultaneously filed her amended complaint. On June 8, 2009, plaintiff then filed a

“Request for Reconsideration to Grant Court-Appointed Counsel.” (Dkt. no. 28.) 

On October 7, 2009, this court issued an order (1) screening plaintiff’s amended

complaint and (2) denying plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel, noting that

plaintiff again did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

counsel. (Dkt. No. 33.) 

On November 3, 2009, plaintiff filed a “Request for Court-Appointed 1) Counsel

and 2) Interpreter for Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 40.) This court again denied the request for court

appointed counsel and the request for an interpreter via a detailed order dated January 20, 2010. 

(Dkt. No. 43.) On February 9, 2010, this action was reassigned to the undersigned judge. (Dkt.

No. 45.) 

Case 2:09-cv-00391-JAM-KJN Document 50 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 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

3

On February 10, 2010, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Final Motion

for Court-Appointed Counsel and Interpreter.” (Dkt. No. 46). Yet this was not plaintiff’s final

filing on this issue. On March 3, 2010, plaintiff, properly noting that this case was reassigned to

the undersigned, again filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Final Motion for Court-Appointed

Counsel and Interpreter.” (Dkt. No. 48). 

As previously recognized by this court, the 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). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of

public funds for court-appointed interpreters. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Loyola v. Potter, 2009 WL

1033398 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (“The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters in

civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay for such a program.”). The court again recognizes

that plaintiff, despite her pro se status and any perceived difficulties, has successfully articulated

her positions via her communications with this court on numerous occasions. Neither

appointment of an interpreter or counsel is appropriate based on the facts presented to this court. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Wilborn v. Excalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)

(recognizing that the court may appoint counsel under that section only under exceptional

circumstances, which includes a finding that a petitioner is unable to articulate his or her claims

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved). 

Plaintiff presents no new facts in support of her requests, which have previously

been ruled on by this court on numerous occasions. Although the court appreciates plaintiff’s

position and the arguable difficulty in prosecuting a case absent counsel, the multiplicity of

plaintiff’s filings are a burden on the court and impede the proper prosecution of this action. The

undersigned concurs that plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to articulate her position and more

than adequately present facts, law and persuasive argument, all without the assistance of counsel

or an interpreter. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-00391-JAM-KJN Document 50 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 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

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and an interpreter are denied

(Dkt. Nos. 46 and 48); and

2. Plaintiff may not seek further court appointment of counsel or an interpreter

based upon the information previously presented to this court. Failure to comply with this order

may result in documents being stricken from the record and may result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 9, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00391-JAM-KJN Document 50 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 4