Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 

(ECF No. 99)

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the 

Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. The Court has set an 

evidentiary hearing for March 13, 2014, to consider whether Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal with 

prejudice of Hanna v. County of Mariposa, 1:12-cv-01885-AWI-SAB, which raised the same 

claims as this action, should be set aside. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the 

appointment of a private investigator pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8(b) and a notice of 

change of address. 

Plaintiff contends that an investigator is necessary to support his claim for relief and he is 

seeking a detailed indexing of documents in the “prosecutions” possession. (Mot. for 

Appointment of Private Investigator 1, ECF No. 99.) Initially, Plaintiff is advised that this is a 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 101 Filed 02/05/14 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

2

federal action proceeding in federal court and California law is inapplicable in this case. 

Plaintiff relies on U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989), to support 

his claim that a private investigator is necessary to help him pursue an affirmative defense due to 

the likelihood of prosecutorial vindictiveness. (ECF No. 99 at 2.) However, Tax Analysts

involved a weekly magazine that was attempting to obtain recent federal court decisions on tax 

issues by using a Freedom of Information Act request. 492 U.S. at 139. The Department denied 

the request and the Supreme Court found that the Department improperly withheld agency 

records when the request was denied. Id. at 140, 155. Tax Analysts does not stand for the 

proposition that Plaintiff sets forth.

Additionally, while a court may be required to provide investigative services to an 

indigent defendant to insure effective preparation of the defense, Williams v. Stewart, 441 F.3d 

1030, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006), this is not a prosecution against Plaintiff by the government. Plaintiff 

has brought a civil action against the defendants and there is no requirement that he be provided 

with investigative services.

“[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when 

authorized by Congress....” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United 

States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). There is no provision in the forma pauperis 

statute to pay for litigation expenses of an indigent inmate and no other statute authorizes the 

federal court to commit federal monies for necessary expenses in a civil lawsuit brought by an 

indigent litigant. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993). 

Although Plaintiff states he is does not have resources to prosecute this action because he 

is in custody, the record shows that he has been released. As Plaintiff has been informed on 

several occasions, discovery has not been opened in this action and he may not seek to conduct 

discovery at this time. If the Court resolves the motion to dismiss currently pending in Plaintiff’s 

favor and this action is still proceeding, a scheduling order will issue setting forth further dates, 

including those for discovery. 

Finally, Plaintiff states that an investigator is necessary because he does not possess 

subpoena power. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff is capable of representing himself in this 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 101 Filed 02/05/14 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

3

action. He has been aggressively seeking to obtain documents he believes are relevant to this 

action. If there comes a time when Plaintiff needs to issue subpoenas, Plaintiff can file a motion 

with the Court. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 101 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 3