Mohammed v. North Dakota, State of et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Ibrahim A. Mohammed, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
Joseph Joyce, Warden, 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT
INTERPRETER AND COUNSEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Case No. 1:26-FY-128
)
Respondent. 	)
Petitioner Ibrahim A. Mohammed (“Mohammed”) is an inmate at the North Dakota State
Penitentiary. He initiated this action pro se and in forma pauperis on May 11, 2026, with the
submission of a Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3
and 5). On May 26, 2026, he filed what the court construes as a motion for the appointment of an
interpreter and for counsel to assist him in this matter. (Doc. No. 8). For the reasons that follow,
the motion is denied without prejudice.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mohammed filed a habeas petition on May 11, 2026. (Doc. No. 3). His grounds for relief
include Brady violations and spoliation of evidence, failure to provide a translator with the correct
dialect at trial, and newly discovered evidence, among others. Id. On May 26, 2026, he filed a
motion requesting the court to appoint an interpreter and counsel to assist him in this matter. (Doc.
No. 8). Therein he asserts:
[F]rom the moment he was arrested until now he has never had a interpreter to help
him understand or comprehend the discovery or any communications between he
and his Attorney nor did he understand any communications that take place in the
court room. Throughout the entire process [he] has depended upon the assistance
of various residents, within the prison population, to attempt to present “issues”
from Within his case.
Case 1:26-cv-00128-CRH Document 9 Filed 06/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(Id.) (errors in original). He further asserts that he “has a learning disability and can not read
English.” (Id.).
In the interim, on May 13, 2026, the court issued an order giving Respondent sixty days to
file a response to Mohammed’s petition and setting a dispositive motion deadline of July 13, 2026.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A “habeas petitioner does not have a right to a court-appointed interpreter.” Hersi v.
Marquis, No. 1:18-CV-2437, 2019 WL 1639755, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2019) (citing
Echevarriaromas v. Warden, No. 1:17CV641, 2018 WL 1070872, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2018);
Youssef v. Miller, No. 1:15CV2150, 2016 WL 4248724, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2016)); see
also Sahin v. Emig Att’y Gen. of the State of Delaware, No. CV 21-1313, 2026 WL 745072, at *3
(D. Del. Mar. 17, 2026) (denying without prejudice a petitioner’s request for the appointment of
an interpreter as he was able to articulate his claims in English and the state court records indicated
his ability to communicate in English); Vargas-Rodriguez v. Ortiz, No. 18-2628, 2019 WL
2366968, at *6 (D.N.J. June 5, 2019) (collecting cases holding pro se civil plaintiffs, including
habeas petitioners, are not entitled to interpreter or translator).
Similarly, a habeas petitioner does not have a right to court-appointed counsel. Morris v.
Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558-59 (8th Cir. 2000); Blair v. Armontrout, 916 F.2d 1310, 1332 (8th
Cir. 1990); see also Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining that a habeas
corpus proceeding is a civil proceeding to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel afforded
for criminal proceedings does not apply). The court may nevertheless appoint counsel for a habeas
petitioner at any time if it finds that “the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(a)(2). If a court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the interests of justice
Case 1:26-cv-00128-CRH Document 9 Filed 06/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
require that the petitioner be appointed counsel. See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts; see also Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir.
1994). “If no evidentiary hearing is necessary, the appointment of counsel is discretionary.”
Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573. When exercising its discretion, the court should determine whether,
given the particular circumstances of the case, the appointment of counsel would benefit the
petitioner and the court to such an extent that the interests of justice require it. Id. (citing 18
U.S.C.A. § 3006A(a)(2) and Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1990)). Thus, the
court should consider a number of relevant factors, including the legal and factual complexity of
the case, the petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant factors.
See id.; Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986).
Here, the court is disinclined to appoint an interpreter for Mohammed at this juncture.
Mohammed has filed a habeas petition in which he cogently sets forth his grounds for relief and
appears to have found someone who can assist him with interpretation/translation to the extent that
such assistance is allegedly needed. Further, Respondent has yet to file a response to Mohammed’s
petition and there are presently no hearings scheduled in this matter. Thus, there is nothing for
which Mohammed requires immediate interpretive assistance. Further, there is a dearth of
information in the record regarding Mohammed’s English proficiency or lack thereof. Finally,
assuming that English is not Mohammed’s native language, Mohammed fails to specify the
required language and dialect for the interpreter he is requesting.
The court is also disinclined at present to appointment counsel for Mohammed. Neither
Mohammed’s claims nor the events giving rise to them appear to be overly complex. Moreover,
as noted above, Mohammed has filed a habeas petition in which he cogently sets forth his grounds
Case 1:26-cv-00128-CRH Document 9 Filed 06/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
for relief, which demonstrates his ability to present his case with the assistance presently available
to him at the North Dakota State Penitentiary.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Mohammed’s motion for the appointment of an interpreter and counsel (Doc. No. 8) is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23nd day of June, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:26-cv-00128-CRH Document 9 Filed 06/23/26 Page 4 of 4