Yongxu Sun, Plaintiff, v. Jane Doe, Defendant. (2025)

Order

Pro se Plaintiff Yongxu Sun asks this court to appoint a qualified Mandarin Chinese interpreter to assist him during an upcoming hearing. D.E. 22. Sun says that English is not his first language and that he struggles with oral comprehension, despite his basic English reading and writing skills. Id. So, he claims, he will be at a disadvantage at the hearing. Id. at 2.

Parties to civil actions do not have a general right to a court-appointed interpreter. See Evans v. Hurtado, Civil Action No. 8:23–2238, 2025 WL 563368, at *6 n.4 (D. Md. Feb. 20, 2025); Arizon v. Ford Cnty. Jail, No. 24–3146, 2025 WL 458020, at *3 (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2025); Gonzalez v. Coburn, No. 16-CV-6174, 2018 WL 4608205, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2018) Echon v. Sackett, No. 14-CV-03420-PAB-NYW, 2018 WL 684758, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 2, 2018); Nguyen v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 09-CV-1925, 2013 WL 12061829, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2013); Xuli Zhang v. Ross Store Inc., No. 1:10CV1328, 2011 WL 8129471, at *1 n.2 (E.D. Va. May 17, 2011); Act II Jewelry, LLC v. Zhu, No. 2:09CV407, 2010 WL 11450509, at *3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2010); Fessehazion v. Hudson Grp., No. 08 Civ. 10665, 2009 WL 2596619, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009), reconsideration granted on other grounds, 2009 WL 2777043 (Aug. 31, 2009); Song v. Welch, No. 5:09-CV-72-D, 2009 WL 10687727, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2009).

Instead, federal law allows a court to provide interpreters at court expense only in limited circumstances.¹ It may do so in a “judicial proceedings instituted by the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(a). And it may also do so to facilitate witness testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d).

Neither of those circumstances apply here. The United States did not initiate this action, and the court will not be taking testimony at the upcoming hearing. So the court denies Sun's motion. D.E. 22.

That said, Sun may hire an interpreter at his own cost to assist him with the proceeding.

Dated : July 10, 2025

FOOTNOTES

1.   Under the Constitution, Congress is responsible for appropriating federal funds. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. As a result, federal courts cannot expend federal funds without congressional approval. United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 322 (1976) (“The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress, not that public funds may be expended unless prohibited by Congress.”).

Robert T. Numbers, II United States Magistrate Judge