Hector Zuniga v. William Effler, No. 12-6072 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6072 HECTOR EDGARDO RUIZ ZUNIGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM EFFLER; SHANE VARNEY; MICHAEL SUTTON; JULIAN CARR; LAWRENCE THOMAS DIXON, Defendants Appellees, and JOSEPH CRAVEN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03177-BO) Submitted: June 7, 2012 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 21, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hector Edgardo Ruiz Zuniga, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gregory Wenzl Brown, Amy Holbrook Hopkins, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. BROWN LAW, LLP, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Hector Edgardo Ruiz Zuniga appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. Zuniga contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for appointment of counsel and by failing to provide him with Spanish translations of court documents. In civil cases such as this one, we review an order denying appointment of counsel for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. See 1987). Appointment of counsel is proper [i]f it is apparent to the district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present circumstance is present. (4th Cir. 1978). it or some other exceptional Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1153 We do not find that the district court abused its discretion in this regard. Nothing in Zuniga s complaint or in his abbreviated motion for appointment of counsel would have made it apparent to the district court that he possessed colorable claim but lacked the capacity to present it. a Nor do we find that the district court committed error by failing to translate court documents into Spanish for Zuniga. Prior to his notice of appeal, Zuniga never informed the district court that he could not read the English language. Moreover, the court had no affirmative duty to provide Zuniga with translations of court 3 filings. district impetus Contrary court of a does civil to Zuniga s appellate assertions, the not bear burden investigate the the plaintiff s silence to where the plaintiff failed to communicate with the court for over a year and made no response to two motions to dismiss and multiple notices from the court. Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument the district because the court s facts orders. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
