Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00151/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00151-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

HECTOR HUGO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DARLENE LORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00151-RRB

ORDER

Hector Hugo Hernandez, a self-represented prisoner, has filed multiple 

motions regarding the appointment of an expert witness and amending his 

complaint. 

1. Docket 67: Motion for the Appointment of Two Medical Experts

At Docket 67, Mr. Hernandez requests the Court appoint two medical 

experts regarding his alleged physical and psychological injuries. In support of this 

motion, Mr. Hernandez argues that he is indigent, the medical issues are complex, 

and that he has been unable to locate an expert witness on his own.1 

Mr. Hernandez relies on Rules 702, 703, and 706 of the Federal Rules of 

1 Docket 67 at 1.

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 7
3:19-cv-00151-RRB, Hernandez v. Lord, et al.

Order

Page 2 of 7

Evidence.

2 The Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that Mr. Hernandez 

is requesting the witness appointments in order to bolster his case.

3

Federal Rule of Evidence 706 provides a court the discretion to appoint an 

expert witness, either on a party’s motion or on its own accord. An expert witness 

appointed under this rule is a neutral party charged with assisting a court in 

determining a material fact.4 When determining whether to exercise such 

discretion, a court may consider a number of relevant factors, including:

“(1) Whether expert testimony is necessary or significantly useful for the trier of 

fact to comprehend a material issue[; and] (2) Whether the moving party has 

produced some evidence, admissible or otherwise, that demonstrates a serious 

dispute that could be resolve or understood through expert testimony.”5

Mr. Hernandez argues that his case presents complex medical issues in 

need of expert testimony. In support, he presents an affidavit along with 25 

exhibits.6 These exhibits consist of Request for Interview (RFI) communications 

2 Id.

3 Docket 70.

4 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), judgment reinstated, 

959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992), aff’d, 509 U.S. 25 (1993); see also Claiborne v.

Blauser, 934 F.3d 885, 901 n.7 (9th Cir. 2019).

5 Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1185 (9th Cir. 2011).

6 Docket 68.

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 7
3:19-cv-00151-RRB, Hernandez v. Lord, et al.

Order

Page 3 of 7

from Mr. Hernandez and medical progress notes.

7 However, while Mr. Hernandez 

has provided evidence in support of his motion, neither his motion nor his evidence 

demonstrate a serious dispute that needs to be resolved through expert testimony

at this time. Mr. Hernandez’s evidence supports the claims in his First Amended 

Complaint. At this stage in litigation, it is unclear as to what a serious dispute(s) 

of material fact will arise between the parties and will need to be decided by the 

fact finder. As presented, a serious dispute has yet to arise that requires neutral 

expert testimony. Nevertheless, the Court notes that such a dispute may arise 

during or after the close of discovery or through dispositive motions practice. 

Accordingly, this motion is premature. 

2. Dockets 69, 71, & 72: Motions to Modify or Amend Complaint

At Dockets 69, 71, and 72, Mr. Hernandez files three separate motions to 

“compliment, “modify,” or “add sentences” to his First Amended Complaint. The 

Defendants oppose all of these motions on procedural grounds.

8 The Court has 

already issued multiple orders to Mr. Hernandez regarding the process of 

amending a complaint. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the process for 

amending pleadings. A plaintiff may amend a complaint (1) within 21 days after 

7 Docket 68.

8 Dockets 74–76.

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 7
3:19-cv-00151-RRB, Hernandez v. Lord, et al.

Order

Page 4 of 7

service or within 21 days of a responsive pleading or a motion under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b), (e), or (f); (2) with the opposing party’s consent, or 

(3) with a court’s permission.9 Additionally, the Local Civil Rule 15.1 governs this 

Court’s practice for amending pleadings. “The proposed amended pleading must 

not incorporate by reference any prior pleading, including exhibits.”10 In this Court, 

an amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its entirety. Plainly, this 

means that a plaintiff cannot simply add on new claims or defendants by motion or 

declaration. In order to amend a complaint, a plaintiff must submit a new complaint 

with all the claims the plaintiff seeks to allege.

After the acceptance of the First Amended Complaint, the Court set 

August 17, 2020, as a deadline for any amended pleadings.11 As a matter of

scheduling procedure, Mr. Hernandez’s motions are beyond the deadline. 

Mr. Hernandez’s motions to amend, though relatively innocuous in their additions 

or amendments, are not allowed under the rules. A party cannot simply add or 

amend claims and by reference through a simple motion. In accordance with the 

Local Civil Rule 15.1, and as he has done before, Mr. Hernandez must file a new 

complaint with all of his claims, naming all of the defendants. If Mr. Hernandez 

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

10 Local Civil Rule 15.1.

11 Docket 64.

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 4 of 7
3:19-cv-00151-RRB, Hernandez v. Lord, et al.

Order

Page 5 of 7

wants to amend his complaint, he needs to (1) file a motion requesting leave of the 

Court to amend his complaint, (2) attach to that motion an entirely new complaint 

which alleges all of claims and all of the defendants, and (3) show cause as to why 

the Court should accept amended pleadings beyond the deadline set in the 

Amended Scheduling Order. 

The only instance in which a plaintiff can modify his or her Complaint without 

filing an entirely new Complaint is when a plaintiff discovers the identity of a John 

or Jane Doe defendant. In that case, a plaintiff may file a Notice of Substitution. 

A Notice of Substitution informs the Court and the Defendants of the identity of a 

John or Jane Doe defendant and which claim is impacted by the discovery. 

Mr. Hernandez attempts to make such a substitution at Docket 69. Therefore, the 

Court will construe this limited section of the motion as a Notice of Substitution. In 

the future, any identified John or Jane Doe defendants should be submitted by a 

Notice of Substitution.

3. Defendants’ Request for Screening Order

Finally, in the Defendant’s Response at Docket 70, it states the “defendants 

are uncertain of which new claims will survive until the issuance of a screening 

order. Moreover, none of the defendants added in the amended complaint have 

been served or entered their appearance.”12 The Court will not issue an additional 

12 Docket 70, fn. 1.

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 5 of 7
3:19-cv-00151-RRB, Hernandez v. Lord, et al.

Order

Page 6 of 7

screening order as Mr. Hernandez’s claims have already been approved to 

proceed.13 An Amended Scheduling Order has been issued. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 

1. The Motion for the Appointment of Two Medical Experts at Docket 67 is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS PREMATURE. The Court may 

entertain this issue upon a showing of a serious dispute of a material fact

either on motion from a party or on its own accord.

2. The Motion to Compliment/Modify First Amended Complaint at Docket 

69 is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The Court accepts

the Notice of Substitution, David Coyne, R.N. shall be added as a 

defendant. 

3. The Motion for Leave of Court to Add/Compliment Two Sentences as 

Conclusion to Paragraphs at Docket 71 is DENIED.

4. The Motion “Final” Addition to Amended Complaint at Docket 72 is 

DENIED.

5. Counsel for the Defendants has 60 days to make an appearance on 

behalf of the additional defendants of the First Amended Complaint and 

the Notice of Substitution at Docket 69. 

13 See Dockets 9, 61.

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 6 of 7
3:19-cv-00151-RRB, Hernandez v. Lord, et al.

Order

Page 7 of 7

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline

RALPH R. BEISTLINE

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00151-RRB Document 81 Filed 11/05/20 Page 7 of 7