Woodfill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-2118 MCE KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER D. WOODFILL, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff renews his request for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff asks the court to appoint a bilingual attorney to also serve as an interpreter for plaintiff. The court is unable to read the rest of plaintiff’s motion because it is written in Spanish. (ECF No. 51 at 1-5 (§ III to end).) Plaintiff has been informed that the court has no authority to appoint an interpreter. (ECF No. 49 at 2.) See also Ruiz v. Orozco, No. 1:19-cv-0048 AWI GSA (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2020). Moreover, as was previously explained to plaintiff, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court…