Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03921/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03921-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Addressing Pending Motions 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Saldana921misc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL SALDANA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL SAYRE, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 11-3921 LHK (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING

PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket Nos. 28, 29, 31, 42)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs. On September 7, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay summary judgment

proceedings, a motion to appoint a medical expert, and a motion to appoint counsel. On October

25, 2012, Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion to stay summary judgment

proceedings and motion to appoint a medical expert. On October 26, 2012, Defendants filed a

motion to stay discovery pending the disposition of their argument that they are entitled to

qualified immunity. 

A. Motion to appoint a medical expert

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for appointment

of a medical expert to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Rule

702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge

Case 3:11-cv-03921-WHO Document 43 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 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

Order Addressing Pending Motions 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Saldana921misc.wpd 2

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. Under Rule 706, the Court may on

its own motion, or on the motion of a party appoint an expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). 

However, the Court finds that appointment of an expert is not necessary or appropriate at

this time. First, the Court does not need an expert witness to aid its understanding of the

deliberate indifference claim in this action. Second, in a civil rights action such as this, Rule

706(b) contemplates that the expert would be paid by the parties, but here, Defendants would

have to bear the entire cost because Plaintiff would be unable to pay for the expert. There is no

showing that it is appropriate or fair to require Defendants to bear the sole burden of paying an

expert witness to present Plaintiff’s point of view.

Nonetheless, at this point in the proceedings, the Court finds it is premature to decide

whether appointment of a medical expert is warranted. Specifically, until the Court has had the

opportunity to review the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties on summary

judgment, no determination can be made that the issues are so complex as to require the

testimony of an expert to assist the trier of fact. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

of a medical expert will be DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to renewal, once

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been submitted and considered.

B. Discovery motions

Plaintiff moves to stay summary judgment proceedings so that he can have more time to

conduct discovery. Plaintiff also claims that he needs more time to access the law library so that

he can file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants have filed a

motion to stay discovery proceedings pending the Court’s disposition of the issue of qualified

immunity.

 As a general rule, a district court should stay discovery until the issue of qualified

immunity is resolved. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery until

the Court has ruled on the issue of qualified immunity, as raised in Defendants’ motion for

Case 3:11-cv-03921-WHO Document 43 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 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

Order Addressing Pending Motions 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Saldana921misc.wpd 3

summary judgment, is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to stay summary judgment

proceedings pursuant to Rule 56(d), therefore, is DENIED as moot. See Fed. R. Civ P. 56(d). 

At this time, Plaintiff’s opposition is overdue. However, because Plaintiff appears to

have had difficulty accessing the law library to conduct whatever research he believes he needs

to file a proper opposition, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file an

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall file his opposition no

later than twenty eight days from the filing date of this order. Defendants shall file their reply

fourteen days thereafter.

C. Motions to appoint counsel

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED for want of exceptional

circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lassiter v.

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in a

civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex, and Plaintiff has thus far been 

able to adequately present his claims. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte

appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such

appointment.

This order terminates docket numbers 28, 29, 31, and 42.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: LUCY H. KOH 

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03921-WHO Document 43 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 3