Kou Lo Vang v. Ron Angelone James Collins

37 F.3d 1507 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Kou Lo VANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE; James Collins, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-15069. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 11, 1994. * Decided Sept. 30, 1994. 1 Before: LEAVY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges; and MARSH, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Vang argues that he does not speak enough English to adequately present his case, so he should have received appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 (d). The district judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that Vang's case did not present "exceptional circumstances" requiring appointment of counsel. Neither likelihood of success on the merits nor inability to present his case required it. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). Vang's chances of success were low, and his papers were adequate to present his claims. 4 The district judge did not deny Vang whatever right to an interpreter for…