Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00184-19/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

* * * 

MAURICE R. SCOTT, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

MTA KELLER, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No. 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL

ORDER 

(Mtn for Exam – Dkt. #155) 

 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Maurice R. Scott’s Motion Under Rule 

35(a)(2) for Physical and Mental Examination of Persons (Dkt. #155) filed August 4, 2014. The 

court has considered the Motion, Defendants Moser’s and Wagner’s Opposition (Dkt. #156) filed 

August 7, 2014, and Plaintiff’s untimely Reply (Dkt. #157) filed September 8, 2014. 

 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The only 

remaining claim in this case is Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Moser and Wagner violated the 

Eighth Amendment by causing a delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of medical attention for an injured 

hand. See Order (Dkt. #128). The Motion requests the court order Plaintiff to be seen by an 

orthopedic specialist physician who can “give an expert opinion, diagnose, and screen Plaintiff’s 

medical records.” 

Defendants oppose the Motion, asserting that there is no dispute that Plaintiff’s hand was 

fractured, and the medical treatment Plaintiff received is not in issue. The sole issue is whether 

the alleged delay in treatment violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment—

specifically, whether Defendants were aware of an excessive risk of harm, and whether they 

deliberately disregarded that risk. Defendants assert that the testimony of an orthopedic expert 

will not aid the fact-finder in that determination. Additionally, Defendants assert that Federal 

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 158 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Rule of Civil Procedure 35 is not the appropriate basis for Plaintiff’s Motion because he is 

seeking information about himself and has not shown good cause exists to order the examination. 

Instead, Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the court’s appointment of an expert 

witness when scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the fact finder’s 

understanding of the evidence to decide a fact in issue. Defendants contend the appointment of 

an orthopedic specialist is unnecessary because Plaintiff’s medical condition is not in issue. 

Plaintiff replies that he cannot give a medical opinion because he is not a trained 

physician, and expert testimony is required to prove medical malpractice at trial. 

Under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may appoint a neutral expert. 

See Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (citing In re High Fructose 

Corn Syrup Antitrust Lit., 295 F.3d 651, 655 (7th Cir. 2002). The decision whether to appoint an 

expert under FRE 706 is discretionary, but ultimately, the court must decide whether appointing 

a neutral expert will promote accurate fact finding. See Gorton, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1179 (citing 

29 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 6304 (3d ed. Supp. 2011)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is whether Defendants Moser and Wagner were 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. The court finds that appointment of 

an expert is not required here. The jury will be able to evaluate Defendants Moser’s and 

Wagner’s subjective beliefs with an instruction concerning deliberate indifference and without 

an expert’s assistance. Under the facts of this case, the jury need not consider complex questions 

of medical diagnosis and judgment like they would in a medical malpractice case This is not a 

medical malpractice case, and Plaintiff’s injuries are undisputed. The only issue for the jury is a 

subjective inquiry into the state of mind of the Defendants. An expert is not necessary to opine 

whether Plaintiff had serious medical needs because the symptoms he exhibited—i.e., a broken 

finger—are not beyond a lay person’s grasp. 

Accordingly, 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 158 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Medical Expert (Dkt. #155) is 

DENIED. 

Dated this 10th day of November, 2014. 

 

____________________________________ 

PEGGY A. LEEN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 158 Filed 11/12/14 Page 3 of 3