Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02929/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02929-29/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 

GREGORY NORWOOD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANGANAMA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-2929 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s renewed motion for an expert witness. 

ECF No. 145. Defendant has responded (ECF No. 146) and plaintiff has replied (ECF No. 146). 

 Plaintiff’s surviving claim against defendant Kaur is that she deliberately misdiagnosed 

him when she examined him in July 2009 because she believed that a correct diagnosis of scabies 

would create civil liability against the medical department. ECF No. 108 at 3, 7, 10-11; ECF No. 

110; ECF No. 111. Plaintiff previously moved for appointment of an expert dermatologist early 

in this case. ECF No. 20. That request was denied because an expert witness was deemed 

unnecessary at that early stage. ECF No. 45 at 11. In light of the impending trial, plaintiff has 

again moved for an expert witness in this case. ECF No. 145. 

Plaintiff seeks a dermatology expert to examine him with an ultraviolet light and 

microscope “in an attempt to detect eggs, feces and new or old burro[w]ing etc.” Id. Although 

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 153 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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 specifies an expert and the cost for that expert conducting an examination, he states that 

any expert appointed by the court would be acceptable. Id.; ECF No. 147. Defendant objects to 

the request on the grounds that plaintiff’s current condition has little bearing on his claims in this 

case; he is seeking an advocate, not a neutral expert; and he has the means to pay for an expert. 

ECF No. 146. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 706 authorizes the appointment of a neutral expert witness, with 

expenses shared by the parties. The appointment of an independent expert witness pursuant to 

Rule 706 is within the court’s discretion, Walker v. American 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, the statute 

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

for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 

1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent litigant is proper only when 

authorized by Congress); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir. 1987) (no provision 

to pay fees for expert witnesses). The federal courts have uniformly held that an indigent prisoner 

litigant must bear his own costs of litigation, including witnesses. Tedder, supra, 890 F.2d at 211 

(in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize waiver of fees or expenses for an 

indigent’s witnesses). 

In this case, it appears that plaintiff is seeking to have the court appoint an expert witness 

to advocate on his behalf. However, even if plaintiff is truly seeking a neutral expert, the court 

does not find that the issues in this case are complicated such that the testimony of a neutral 

expert would be warranted. Moreover, as defendant points out, her alleged conduct took place 

over six years ago and plaintiff has not provided any evidence that an evaluation of his current 

condition would have any relevance to his condition six years ago. Even if an expert could detect 

evidence of old infections, there is nothing to indicate that the date of those infections could be 

identified with the accuracy necessary to establish that plaintiff had scabies when he was 

examined by defendant Kaur in July 2009. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of an expert 

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 153 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

dermatologist pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 will therefore be denied. 

Plaintiff’s request is also reasonably construed as a request for appointment of a medical 

expert on plaintiff’s behalf . In contrast to the procedures under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, 

the expenses of an expert retained on behalf of a prisoner litigant may be recovered if 

preauthorized and arranged by counsel appointed by this court’s Pro Bono Panel. The United 

States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In 

this instance, the court does not find the issues to be so complex that plaintiff will be unable to 

articulate his claims. Moreover, plaintiff’s request for an expert to testify regarding his current 

condition does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. The 

court will therefore decline to appoint counsel. 

The court notes that defendant also argues that plaintiff has the means to pay for an expert 

and no longer meets the requirements for in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 146 at 5, 7), which 

would weigh against appointment of counsel for the purpose of obtaining an expert witness. 

However, counsel does not provide the court with any specifics that would allow a finding that 

plaintiff can afford either counsel or an expert witness. The court declines to accept counsel’s 

conclusory assertion that plaintiff no longer qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis (id. at 7, ¶ 3) 

as evidence of plaintiff’s ability to pay for his litigation expenses. 

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 153 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

Because the remaining issues in this case are not so complex as to require the appointment 

of a neutral expert and plaintiff has not established that the purpose for which he seeks an expert 

witness would have any relevance to the issues in this case, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

an expert will be denied and the court will not appoint counsel for the purpose of retaining an 

expert witness. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an expert witness 

(ECF No. 145) is denied. 

DATED: November 18, 2015 

Case 2:09-cv-02929-JAM-AC Document 153 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 4