(PC) Rodriguez v. Knight

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELADIO RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:19-cv-2552 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER G. KNIGHT, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants used excessive force against him and denied him due process in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

20 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an interpreter.

21 Plaintiff requests the court appoint a Spanish interpreter for the settlement conference set for May 25, 2021 before Magistrate Judge Delaney. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff has not provided any arguments in support of his request.

24 “[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 statute authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a court-appointed interpreter in a civil action. See Loyola v. Potter, 2009 WL 1033398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2009) (“The court is not authorized to appoint interpreters for litigants in civil cases, and, moreover, has no funds to pay | for such a program.”). Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's request for an interpreter.

3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an interpreter (ECF No. 23) is | denied.

5 | Dated: April 7, 2021 g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB:12 13. | DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil Rights/rodr2552.interp