Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01441/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Anthony Robledo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1441-PHX-JAT (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed two appeals of Orders of the Magistrate Judge in this case. One

seeks to have all of rulings of the Magistrate Judge vacated. Doc. 43. The other appeals

three rulings of the Magistrate Judge in this case. Doc. 117. As Defendants note in their

response, this Court should affirm the Magistrate Judge’s orders unless they are either clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. Doc. 119 at 2.

I. Appeal at Doc. 43

In his appeal at Doc. 43, Plaintiff appeals all of the Magistrate Judge’s orders because

the parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Because this case has not

been transferred to a Magistrate Judge for trial, but only referred to a Magistrate Judge for

pretrial proceedings, this appeal is unfounded.

II. Appeal at Doc. 117

A. Request to Take Depositions

The Magistrate Judge ruled:

Case 2:12-cv-01441-JAT Document 125 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Plaintiff’s motion at Doc. 102 seeks a Court order appointing three

psychiatrists who have never been employed by the State of Arizona or

Corizon to examine Plaintiff so that the psychiatrists might “prove or disprove

the Plaintiff’s claim of mental and emotional injuries...”. Plaintiff asks the

Court to order each of these psychiatrists to submit work histories to the Court

to prove they have not been hired by the state or its contractors to provide

mental health services. 

There is no provision for the procurement of expert witnesses for prisoners or

other indigent litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. A federal court may appoint

an expert witness under Rule 706(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when,

in the Court’s discretion, an expert is required to assist the trier of fact in

evaluating contradictory or complex evidence. See, e.g., Walker v. American

Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appointment is not appropriate for the purpose of assisting a litigating party

for his own benefit. See Carranza v. Fraas, 763 F. Supp. 2d 113, 119-20

(D.D.C. 2011). Plaintiff has not shown issues of requisite complexity requiring

appointment of an expert witness. Additionally, although Rule 35, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to order a party to submit to a

physical examination at the request of an opposing party, this rule does not

authorize the Court “to appoint an expert to examine a party wishing an

examination of himself.” Smith v. Carroll, 602 F. Supp. 2d 521, 526 (D. Del.

2009). 

Doc. 114 at 1-2.

Plaintiff appeals and argues he should be evaluated because such evaluation might

help Defendants’ defense. Doc. 117 at 2. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s

order, which are not contrary to law nor clearly erroneous, this request is denied.

B. Request to Take Depositions

The Magistrate Judge ruled:

Plaintiff’s motion at Doc. 106 seeks leave to depose non-parties, i.e., a Deputy

Warden, a Sergeant, and a Corrections Officer II. Plaintiff asks the Court to

order the depositions take place in person and that Plaintiff be allowed to

attend the depositions and have his daily medication and prison scheduled

adjusted accordingly. Plaintiff asks that all fees associated with the depositions

be deferred. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel for the depositions and

asks that his protective segregation file be made available to him prior to the

depositions. Plaintiff has made no showing that deposition of these non-parties

is relevant or necessary to the prosecution of his claims.

Doc. 114 at 2-3. 

In response to the appeal, Defendants note the following practical concerns:

Additionally, in his Motion, Plaintiff requested that the non-party depositions

be conducted before a court-appointed stenographer, that an individual be

appointed to read his deposition questions, that the depositions be reduced to

Case 2:12-cv-01441-JAT Document 125 Filed 11/14/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

transcript form, and that the fees for the depositions be deferred. (Motion at 2.)

In order for Plaintiff to take depositions in the proposed manner, an ADC

correctional officer, who is a notary, would have to be removed from his or her

normal daily work activities. This would greatly impact staffing issues in the

prison unit and could jeopardize the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the

unit.

Furthermore, for the depositions to be of any real use at trial, should that

eventually occur, they must be reduced to a transcript form. Plaintiff provided

no indication as to how he intends to pay for the depositions and transcripts,

other than to request that the fees be deferred. There is no statutory

requirement for the government to provide a litigant proceeding in forma

pauperis with copies of deposition transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. 1915; Tabron v.

Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-159 (3rd Cir. 1993) (finding no abuse of discretion

because there is no authorization for the court to commit federal money to

provide indigent inmates with copies of deposition transcripts.”) Moreover,

allowing Plaintiff to defer the cost of the transcripts would deny the Court

Reporter of his/her rightful compensation.

Plaintiff also failed to address payment of the attendance fee required by 28

U.S.C. § 1821. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (A

party proceeding in forma pauperis is still required to pay witness and mileage

fees in connection with deposition subpoenas.). The witness fees must be

prepaid by Plaintiff prior to service of the deposition subpoenas. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45(b)(1).

Doc. 119 at 2-3.

Plaintiff appeals and argues that the testimony of these witnesses is relevant. First,

the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff has made no particularized

showing that each of these three proposed deponents (who are not parties) has information

relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Second, the Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s ruling for

all the logistical reasons set forth by Defendants.

C. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Finally, Plaintiff appeals the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his request for appointment

of counsel. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). The

appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances

are present. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation

of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate

Case 2:12-cv-01441-JAT Document 125 Filed 11/14/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court must

review both of these factors together in deciding whether or not to appoint counsel. Id.

Applying this standard, the Court finds that Plaintiff is capable of articulating his

claims pro se. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not likely to have success on the

merits that Defendants emotionally and mentally harmed him by failing to place him in

protective segregation.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Orders of the Magistrate Judge which are on appeal are

affirmed; the appeals are denied (Docs. 43 and 117).

DATED this 13th day of November, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01441-JAT Document 125 Filed 11/14/13 Page 4 of 4