(PC)Ruiz

(PC)Ruiz v. Stane

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 11, 20221:22-cv-00236California733 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00236-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND MOTION

v. FOR AN INTERPRETER M. STANE, ET. AL., (Doc. No. 2) Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and for an interpreter, filed on February 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Sacramento Division of this Court, which was transferred to this Court on February 25, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4). Although the entire motion is written in Spanish, not English, the Court is able to discern that Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel and an interpreter for this case. (See generally Doc. No. 2). Motions and court filings must be in English. The Court has warned Plaintiff about this requirement on many occasions. See e.g. Ruiz v. Mobert, Case…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.