Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an independent expert witness, filed 

February 27, 2014. 

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for appointment of a 

medical expert, during the summary judgment motion phase of this case. Pursuant to Rule 702 of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the 

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert 

by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or 

otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 706, the Court may on its own motion, or on the motion of 

a party appoint an expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706 (a). 

BENNY FORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. WILDEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT 

EXPERT 

[ECF No. 40]

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 41 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 2
2

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

In this instance, the Court finds that appointment of an expert is not necessary or appropriate at 

this time. First, the Court does not need an expert witness to aid its understanding of the excessive 

force and failure to protect claims in this action. Second, in a civil rights action such as this, Rule 

706(b) contemplates that the expert would be paid by the parties, but here, Defendants would have to 

the bear the entire cost because Plaintiff would be unable to pay for the expert. There is no showing 

that it is appropriate or fair to require the Court or another party to bear the sole burden of paying an 

expert witness to present Plaintiff’s point of view.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a medical expert will be DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 41 Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 2