Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01340-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESSES

(Doc. 25)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the

appointment of thirty-six expert witnesses.

The district court has the discretion to appoint an expert pursuant to Rule 706(a) of the

Federal Rules of Evidence, which reads, in part, “[t]he court may on its own motion or on the motion

of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed . . . .” Fed.

R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071

(9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 702, “[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.

The function of an expert witness is to testify at trial to assist the trier of fact in understanding

the evidence. At this early stage in the proceedings, plaintiff’s motion is premature. Although the

court has found that service of the complaint is appropriate, service of process has not yet been

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 31 Filed 07/27/06 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

effected. Plaintiff may re-file his motion at such time that it appears this matter will be set for trial.

Until that time, any motion for the appointment of an expert is premature. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion forthe appointment of expert witnesses, filed July

10, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 31 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2