Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942-17/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the October 5, 2022 order denying his motion for 

appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 69. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a 

party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district 

judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” 

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge’s denial of his request was in error because the Federal 

Rules of Evidence provide for the appointment of an expert witness at defendants’ expense. 

ECF No. 69 at 2. 

//// 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 71 Filed 12/15/22 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 

Plaintiff appears to be referring to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, which authorizes the 

appointment of a neutral expert witness, with expenses shared by the parties. The appointment of 

an independent expert witness under Rule 706 is within the court’s discretion, Walker v. Am. 

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

appropriate when “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact 

to understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue,” Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-59 

(7th Cir. 1997). However, as the magistrate judge noted in denying plaintiff’s request, the statute 

authorizing plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not authorize the expenditure of public funds 

for expert witnesses, and the federal courts have uniformly held that an indigent prisoner litigant 

must bear his own costs of litigation, including for witnesses. See ECF No. 65 at 1 (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Boring v. 

Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir. 1987)). Moreover, in this case, it appears plaintiff is

seeking to have the court appoint an expert witness to advocate on his behalf, which is not 

authorized by Rule 706, and even if plaintiff is truly seeking a neutral expert, the court does not 

find the issues in this case are complicated such that the testimony of a neutral expert would be 

warranted. The September 28, 2022 order of the magistrate judge is therefore not clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law and the objections will be overruled.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s objections to the October 5, 2022 order denying his motion to compel (ECF

No. 69) are OVERRULED and the October 5, 2022 order is AFFIRMED; and 

2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

proceedings. 

DATED: December 14, 2022. 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 71 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 2