Alonso v. Parker
Alonso v. Parker
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-51077 Summary Calendar
ANTONIO ALONSO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DEBORAH A. PARKER ET AL.,
Defendants,
NATIVIDAD Q. VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-96-CV-106 --------------------
September 27, 1999
Before KING Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Alonso, TDJC# 462941, appeals the dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action for failure to prosecute. The district
court dismissed the case at the beginning of trial because Alonso
did not proceed in English. The district court found that Alonso
had not given notice that he could not speak English and needed
an interpreter. However, Alonso had given notice on December 19,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 97-51077 -2-
1996, that he could not speak English when he filed a motion for
appointment of counsel, which the district court denied.
Further, on September 19, 1997, approximately two months before
trial, Alonso filed a motion requesting an interpreter and
renewing his request for appointment of counsel. The district
court did not rule on this later motion. Thus, the district
court’s reasons for dismissing Alonso’s claim are not supported
by the record. The district court abused its discretion in
dismissing Alonso’s case. See Clofer v. Perego,
106 F.3d 678, 679(5th Cir. 1997); Edwards v. City of Houston,
78 F.3d 983, 994(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED and the
case is REMANDED.
In addition, Alonso has moved to appoint Corey Baker as his
interpreter and, in the alternative, moved for appointment of
counsel. These motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Alonso’s
refiling such motions in the district court. In light of the
foregoing, we need not consider at this time Alonso’s argument
that the district court erred in not appointing counsel.
VACATED AND REMANDED. ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS ARE DENIED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished