(PC) Ruiz v. Mobert, 1:17-cv-00709

Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz, a Spanish-speaking prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Ruiz moved for appointment of counsel and requested a Spanish-speaking attorney to act as an interpreter for litigation and court rules.
A Magistrate Judge denied the request: no constitutional right to counsel, no exceptional circumstances warranting volunteer counsel, and no entitlement to funded interpreter services for written materials.
Ruiz filed a motion styled as a request for counsel and for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial.
The district court reviewed the magistrate ruling under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard and considered Ruiz’s litigation history (about 26 federal suits filed) as evidence he could access the federal courts despite language barriers.
The district court denied reconsideration, concluding the Magistrate Judge did not abuse discretion and no statutory authority requires public funding for the requested interpreter services.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel should be appointed	Ruiz: needs Spanish-speaking attorney to litigate and understand rules; alleges discrimination	Magistrate/District: no constitutional right to appointed counsel; volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances	Denied — Ruiz failed to show exceptional circumstances under Rand v. Rowland
Whether court must provide funded interpreter services for written materials	Ruiz: cannot litigate without Spanish interpreter/attorney	Magistrate/District: no statutory authority to expend public funds for such interpreter services	Denied — public funding for indigent litigant services requires Congressional authorization (no statute cited)
Whether Magistrate Judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law	Ruiz: alleged denial amounts to discrimination and obstruction	Magistrate/District: ruling applied correct standards and considered relevant facts	Denied — district court found no abuse of discretion and correct legal application
Whether plaintiff's access to courts is impaired by language/literacy	Ruiz: language barrier prevents meaningful access	District: plaintiff’s extensive filing history shows ability to litigate effectively	Found against Ruiz on this record — litigation history undermines claim of denial of access

Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2019) (authority on magistrate judge referrals and review)
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases; requires exceptional circumstances)
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976) (public funds for indigent litigant services available only if authorized by Congress)
Security Farms v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (definition of the "clearly erroneous" standard)
PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10 (5th Cir. 2010) (plenary review for purely legal determinations)
Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (limitations on use of public funds for indigent litigant needs)