Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01412-2/pdf.json

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

---

1 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

J. COOK, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL 

EXPERT 

[ECF No. 98] 

On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion asking the Court to 

appoint a neutral medical expert witness and to do so without requiring 

him to prepay his portion of associated costs to the expert (such that his 

portion of costs would be withdrawn from his prison account as funds 

are available under 28 U.S.C. § 19151). (Doc. No. 98). Plaintiff states 

 

1 The in forma pauperis (IFP) statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not waive 

the requirement of the payment of fees or expenses for witnesses in a § 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 112 Filed 09/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

that an expert should be appointed because he is indigent and 

unrepresented and has been unable to retain his own expert despite 

diligent attempts, and because the Defendants have retained their own 

medical expert whose “allegiance is “tainted,” such that Plaintiff will be 

prejudiced unless an independent expert is appointed. Plaintiff further 

contends an expert would assist the trier of fact in ruling on the 

anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment and at trial. 

As Plaintiff notes, district courts have broad discretion to appoint 

an expert witness, either by their own motion or on motion of a party. 

FED. R. EVID. 706(a); McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1510-11 

(9th Cir. 1991) (overruled on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502 

U.S. 903 (1991)). 

 “Reasonably construed, [Rule 706] does not contemplate the 

appointment of, and compensation for, an expert to aid one of the 

parties.” Walker v. Woodford, 2008 WL 793413 (S.D. Cal., March 24, 

2008) (citation omitted); see also Faletogo v. Moya, 2013 WL 524037 

(S.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2013) (same). A court appointed expert’s function is 

to aid the Court in understanding the issues, not to aid the litigant in 

presenting his claims. Gomez v. Sogge, 2010 WL 2612319 (N.D. Cal. 

June 24, 2010). 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s request and the claims in Plaintiff’s 

case, the Court finds that good cause to appoint an expert witness does 

 

1983 prisoner civil rights action. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th 

Cir. 1993). 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 112 Filed 09/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

14cv1412-JLS-MDD 

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

not exist. Though Plaintiff contends he is seeking appointment of an 

independent, neutral expert, his arguments show he is seeking 

appointment of an expert to aid him since he has been unable to retain 

his own expert. Further, the Court finds it is not necessary to appoint a 

neutral expert to assist the Court at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for a Court-appointed expert witness is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 21, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-01412-JLS-AGS Document 112 Filed 09/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3