Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03069/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03069-13/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

 The defendants from Mule Creek Prison have also moved for summary judgment, but 1

briefing on this motion is not yet complete. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ROBERT GORTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3069 LKK GGH P

vs.

TODD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, claims that defendant doctors at the University of

California Davis Medical Center were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. On

November 24, 2009, these defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued, inter alia, 1

that to succeed on a claim for deliberate indifference, plaintiff must provide expert testimony.

MP&A Summary Judgment, ECF No. 49-1, at 13. On December 15, 2010 and December 18,

2010, plaintiff filed three motions for a court appointed expert witness. Motions, ECF Nos. 53,

56, 61. Plaintiff also argued in his opposition to the summary judgment motion that he needed

the court to appoint an expert witness on his behalf so that he could meaningfully oppose the

summary judgment motion. Opposition, ECF No. 63, at 1-2. On January 21, 2010, the magistrate

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 83 Filed 08/11/10 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

2

judge denied the motions, concluding that, “At this time appointment of a medical expert is not

warranted.” Order, ECF No. 69, at 2. On June 8, 2010, the magistrate judge issued findings and

recommendations that the court grant the motion because, inter alia, “[I]n cases involving

complex medical issues where plaintiff contests the type of treatment he received, expert opinion

will almost always be necessary to establish the necessary level of deliberate indifference.”

Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 75, at 11 (citing Hutchinson v. United States, 838

F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1988)). On June 24, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations again raising the issue of the claimed necessity of appointment of an expert

witness. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that district courts may appoint expert witnesses for a pro se

prisoner bringing a civil rights complaint against prison officials and to “apportion all cost [of the

expert] to one side,” namely the prison officials. McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511

(9th Cir. 1991) affirmed on other grounds Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). In this case,

the Court of Appeals then recommended that the district court appoint an expert “[c]onsidering

the complexity of the scientific evidence in the present case.” Id. 

The apparent inability of an indigent prisoner to ever successfully litigate cases such as

the instant case seems to implicate serious constitutional rights. For this reason, the court will

request supplemental briefing from the parties on this question. The United States Supreme

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

prisoners in Section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, however, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1990);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990). Given the legal complexity and the broad

significance of this issue, the court has determined that this case may be appropriate for the

limited appointment of counsel as to the question of whether the denial of plaintiff’s request for

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 83 Filed 08/11/10 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

 The court will invite the parties to consider whether experts should be appointed as a 2

matter of course when these cases are brought as well as under what conditions, if any, must a

district court grant such a request for appointment in accordance with the Constitution. Further,

the court will request briefing as to the anticipated scope of medical testimony necessary, if any,

and the administrative and financial burdens appointment of expert witnesses in cases like these

may pose.

3

an expert witness offends his constitutional rights. Therefore, this court will refer this case to the 2

King Hall Civil Rights Clinic for review. Plaintiff is cautioned while the case is under review, he

has responsibility to continue to prosecute his action. The court is not staying the litigation

pending the review; rather the review and continued processing of this case will take place at the

same time. No scheduled dates in this litigation have been vacated. Also, it may ultimately turn

out that volunteer counsel may not be procurable for plaintiff's case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall serve this order upon Carter Capps White, King Hall

Civil Rights Clinic, UC Davis School of Law, One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB 30,

Davis, CA 95616;

2. The King Hall Civil Rights Clinic should inform the court within thirty (30) days

of the issuance of this order as to whether it will accept limited representation of

plaintiff; and

3. Upon notice from the King Hall Civil Rights Clinic, the court will set a briefing

schedule for the issue described above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 83 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3