Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321-14/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

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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX ESPINO, JR., Civil No. 05cv2321-WQH(POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT

OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON BACK

INJURIES

[Doc. No. 132]

v.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Felix Espino, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an Ex Parte Motion

for Assignment of Expert Testimony on Back Injuries. Plaintiff requests that the Court assign an

expert witness on back injuries because the issues in this matter are complex. 

The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes federal courts to permit

commencement of suit without prepayment of fees and costs upon a showing of indigency and

allows indigents who are unable to pay the entire filing fee upon filing to pay in installments. 28

U.S.C. § 1915 (a)-(b) (LexisNexis 2006). Section 1915 does not authorize or require federal courts

to finance or subsidize a civil action or appeal by paying expert fees or other costs. Hadsell v.

Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th

Cir. 1993). 

Although federal courts have authority to appoint experts under Federal Rule of Evidence

706, the appointment of an independent expert witness is discretionary. Where there are complex

and/or compelling circumstances and one party is indigent, federal courts do have discretion to

appoint an expert and apportion all of the costs to an opponent “when the expert would significantly

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 143 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

help the court.” McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991), vacated on other

grounds sub nom., Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendants used excessive force during Plaintiff’s arrest. It does not

appear that Plaintiff alleges facts that are so complex or compelling that the trier of fact requires the

assistance of an expert witness on back injuries to understand the evidence or make a fair

determination of a fact in issue. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for appointment of

an expert witness on back injuries is DENIED without prejudice, but subject to renewal if

appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) (“If a party opposing [a summary judgment motion] shows by

affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court

may ... order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other

discovery to be undertaken.”)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2008

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

all parties

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 143 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 2