Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00596/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00596-7/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 

ROBERT LEE JENKINS, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RON BARNES, Warden, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0596 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on the second amended complaint 

against defendant Miranda, a physician’s assistant at High Desert State Prison, for deliberate 

indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

rights. The complaint alleges that when plaintiff first arrived at High Desert State Prison on 

December 5, 2011, defendant Miranda discontinued plaintiff’s Gabapentin medication and 

confiscated his medical devices, including a cane and back brace, which had previously been 

prescribed by doctors. ECF No. 11 at 15-16. As a result, plaintiff had difficulty moving around 

and was forced to walk around limping and in constant pain, with his “degenerative disk/bone 

rubbing bone.” Id. at 16. 

Presently before the court are a number of motions filed by plaintiff seeking appointment 

of an expert witness, appointment of counsel, and various court orders. Also pending is 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 9
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

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 58, filed on May 6, 2015,1 which will be 

addressed in a separate order. 

I. Motion to Appoint Expert Witness (ECF No. 56) 

Plaintiff moves for appointment of an expert witness to “address plaintiff’s medical 

conditions, documents, and share medical knowledge concerning plaintiff’s existing medical 

problems.” ECF No. 56 at 2. Plaintiff asserts that a medical expert is necessary because plaintiff 

himself has no medical knowledge and will not be able to “give accurate medical testimony based 

on medical terms.” Id. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert witness may testify to help the trier 

of fact determine the evidence or a fact at issue. A court has full discretion to appoint an expert 

witness either by its own motion or by a party's motion. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); McKinney v. 

Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1510–11 (9th Cir.1991), overruled on other grounds by Helling v. 

McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991). Appointment of an expert witness may generally 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.” Levi v. Dir. of Corr., 2006 WL 845733, 2006 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18795, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Leford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th 

Cir. 1997)). Here, it is unclear whether plaintiff seeks appointment of an expert on his own 

behalf or appointment of a neutral expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. “Reasonably 

construed, [Rule 706] does not contemplate the appointment of, and compensation for, an expert 

to aid one of the parties.” Trimble v. City of Phoenix Police Dept. 2006 WL 778697, U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 13061, at *6 (D. Ariz. 2006) (citation omitted). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks 

appointment of an expert to help him present his case, this request is denied. 

Plaintiff’s request can also be reasonably construed as a request for appointment of a 

neutral expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Where a party has filed a motion for 

appointment of a neutral expert under Rule 706, the court must provide a reasoned explanation of 

its ruling on the motion. Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d. 1171, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2011). Several 

 

1

 The pretrial dispositive motion deadline expired on May 6, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 9
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

factors guide the court’s decision. First, and most importantly, the court must consider whether 

the opinion of a neutral expert will promote accurate fact finding. Id. at 1179. The court may 

also consider the ability of the indigent party to obtain an expert and the significance of the rights 

at stake in the case. Id. at 1182–84. Expert witnesses should not be appointed where they are not 

necessary or significantly useful for the trier of fact to comprehend a material issue in a case. Id. 

at 1181. 

In the present case, plaintiff claims that defendant Miranda violated plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment rights when he discontinued plaintiff’s Gabapentin medication and confiscated 

plaintiff’s cane and back brace. In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim based on 

inadequate medical care, plaintiff must establish that defendant was deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff’s serious medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A finding of 

deliberate indifference “involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the 

prisoner’s medical need and the nature of defendant’s response to that need.” McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 

104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997).

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Indications that a 

prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment are the following: the existence of an injury 

that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the 

presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the 

existence of chronic and substantial pain. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-

41 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing cases); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200-01 (9th Cir. 1989). 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d at 1059-60. 

With respect to the first element of plaintiff’s claim, the court finds that plaintiff does not 

need an expert to establish that his back condition rises to the level of a serious medical need. 

Plaintiff asserts that his history of back pain is documented in his medical file, that he has 

previously been prescribed Gabapentin by doctors at other prisons, and that he was previously 

issued medical chronos for a cane and back brace. See ECF No. 61 at 4, 6-7. Plaintiff may 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 9
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

submit these documents from his medical file as evidence that he suffers from a serious medical 

condition. To the extent plaintiff alleges that his back pain is not relieved by medications other 

than Gabapentin, plaintiff himself can testify as to his levels of pain and the side effects he 

experienced with other medications. While plaintiff asserts that he cannot testify “based on 

medical terms,” use of such terminology is not necessary for the jury to understand plaintiff’s 

testimony. See Lopez v. Florez, No. 1:08-CV-01975 LJO, 2013 WL 1563326, 2013 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 53175, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2013) (declining to appoint an expert where plaintiff 

was “able to testify as to the amount of pain he experienced and the [resulting] psychological 

effects he suffered”). The symptoms plaintiff complains of here, including pain, stomach 

problems, and difficulty moving around, are not “beyond a lay person’s grasp” and are not of the 

requisite complexity to warrant appointment of an expert. See Ledford, 105 F.3d at 259-60.

In addition to establishing that his medical needs are serious, plaintiff must also show that 

defendant acted with deliberate indifference. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Deliberate 

indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and disregards an 

excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 

2004) (internal citation omitted). Because the deliberate indifference analysis is subjective, 

expert testimony is neither necessary nor significantly useful in determining whether defendant 

acted with deliberate indifference. Expert testimony would not even be admissible on the 

question of defendant’s state of mind. This is particularly true in light of plaintiff’s argument that 

defendant Miranda either did not review plaintiff’s medical records prior to changing his 

medication and confiscating his medical devices, or ignored the notations in his medical file 

documenting plaintiff’s need for Gabapentin. See ECF No. 61 at 3-7. Expert testimony would 

not assist a trier of fact in evaluating plaintiff’s claim that defendant made up his mind about 

plaintiff’s treatment before reviewing plaintiff’s file because he thought plaintiff was faking his 

injuries. See id. at 4, 7. 

For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert is denied. See 

Gorton, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1181. However, the denial of the motion shall be without prejudice to 

its renewal after defendant’s summary judgment motion has been resolved. 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 9
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 

5

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 57) 

Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 57. 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). The test for exceptional 

circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and 

the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. 

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this 

time. Plaintiff’s request for counsel is based on his indigence, lack of legal knowledge, limited 

education, and limited access to the law library and other research materials. However, 

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. To the extent plaintiff’s request for counsel is based on his assertion that 

he will need expert testimony at trial, the court notes that plaintiff’s case has not yet been set for 

trial. Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal after defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment has been resolved. 

III. Motion to Amend (ECF No. 47) 

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion [to] Amend Medical Documents to Second 

Amended Complaint.” ECF No. 47. The court’s review of plaintiff’s motion indicates that 

plaintiff does not seek to file an amended complaint. Rather, plaintiff merely seeks to add 

additional exhibits to his second amended complaint, on which this action currently proceeds. 

Plaintiff asserts that the exhibits attached to his motion, which appear to be copies of documents 

from plaintiff’s medical file, support his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Miranda and 

“will assist with fact finding.” Accordingly, the court construes plaintiff’s “motion to amend” as 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 5 of 9
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 

6

a motion to add exhibits to his second amended complaint and grants the motion. 

IV. Motion for a Court Order (ECF No. 54) 

In his next motion, plaintiff requests a “court order requiring attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses at trial.” ECF No. 54 at 1. In the alternative, plaintiff requests that his incarcerated 

witnesses be permitted to appear telephonically or that the court provide funds to allow plaintiff 

to record their testimony by video. Here, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion is premature as 

plaintiff’s case has not yet been set for trial. Plaintiff must first overcome defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment, ECF No. 58, which is still pending before the court. Plaintiff’s motion is 

therefore denied without prejudice to its renewal after defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

has been resolved. 

V. Motions for “Writ of Mandate” 

Plaintiff filed three separate motions for a “writ of mandate” related to the activities of 

various prison officials at California Men’s Colony (CMC), where plaintiff is currently 

incarcerated. ECF Nos. 46, 50, 63. In these motions, plaintiff requests that the court direct prison 

officials at CMC to cease interfering with his ability to make copies of legal documents, cease 

placing false reports in his central file, and cease interfering with his access to his legal materials. 

The court construes these motions as motions for preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons 

that follow, the motions are denied. 

A. Legal Standards Governing Motions for Injunctive Relief 

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving party 

must show either a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying controversy and the 

possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships 

tips sharply in the movant's favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 

700 (9th Cir.1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th 

Cir.1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point 

being the degree of irreparable injury shown. See Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. Under any 

formulation of the test, however, the moving party must demonstrate that there exists a significant 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 6 of 9
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 

7

threat of irreparable injury. See id. 

Where the preliminary injunction concerns access to the courts, the merits of the 

underlying suit need not be considered. See Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 

1990). The Ninth Circuit has held that “prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement 

to conclusion without active interference by prison officials.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1103 (9th Cir.2011) (emphasis in original). In order to frame a claim of a denial of the 

right to access the courts, a prisoner must establish that he has suffered “actual injury,” a 

jurisdictional requirement derived from the standing doctrine. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 

(1996). An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, 

such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348 (citation and 

internal quotations omitted). 

B. December 19, 2014 Motion (ECF No. 46) 

In his first motion for “writ of mandate,” plaintiff asserts that on December 9, 2014 he 

was “given the run around” when attempting to obtain copies of medical documents to add to his 

second amended complaint. ECF No. 46 at 2. Presumably, plaintiff is referring to documents he 

sought to attach as exhibits to his motion to amend, ECF No. 47, which was filed on the same 

date as the instant motion for a “writ of mandate.” Plaintiff requests that the court order 

“Supervisor Mr. Mahoney not [to] hinder, block, or stop plaintiff from proceeding with his legal 

documents being copied” and not to interfere with plaintiff’s access to the courts. ECF No. 46 at 

2. Here, plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish or allege that Mr. Mahoney’s actions resulted in an 

actual injury, such as a missed filing deadline or the inability to present a claim. Despite being 

“sent back and forth” between the librarian and the education staff in an attempt to obtain copies 

of his documents, it appears that plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the copies sought on December 

9, 2014. Thus, plaintiff has not established a violation of his right of access to the courts, see 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, and the undersigned finds that plaintiff is not likely to suffer irreparable 

harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an 

injunction with respect to Mr. Mahoney is denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 7 of 9
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 

8

C. January 20, 2015 Motion (ECF No. 50) 

In his second motion, plaintiff complains that correctional officers at CMC falsified 

reports and placed them in plaintiff’s central file in order to assist defendant Miranda in his 

defense of the present case. ECF No. 50 at 2. Specifically, plaintiff claims that two correctional 

officers at CMC made reference to plaintiff’s “trial coming up against High Desert State Prison” 

and subsequently wrote a false report stating that plaintiff was observed descending the stairs 

without holding the handrail and without the use of his cane. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff requests that the 

court take appropriate action in order to stop the harassment and retaliation against plaintiff. Id. 

at 3. A copy of the allegedly false report is attached to plaintiff’s motion. See id. at 6. It is dated 

December 18, 2014. Id. 

To the extent plaintiff is concerned that the December 18, 2014 report will be used against 

him in the present case, the undersigned finds the likelihood of such harm to be negligible. 

Although the report suggests that plaintiff is currently able to walk without the use of a handrail 

or cane, it comes three years after the December 5, 2011 medical evaluation at issue in this 

lawsuit. Moreover, defendant has already filed his motion for summary judgment and makes no 

reference to the December 18, 2014 report or any other events that occurred in 2014. See ECF 

No. 58. Accordingly, with respect to the underlying lawsuit, the court does not find that plaintiff 

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion 

is denied. However, to the extent plaintiff wishes to bring a distinct retaliation claim against the 

two officers at California Men’s Colony who authored the report, he may do so by filing a civil 

rights complaint against them after exhausting his administrative remedies within the prison 

system.2

D. June 22, 2015 Motion (ECF No. 63) 

In his final motion, plaintiff alleges that prison officials at CMC are interfering with his 

ability to litigate his multiple ongoing cases by preventing him from keeping two cardboard boxes 

containing legal materials in his bunk. See ECF No. 63. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that prison 

 

2

 The court expresses no opinion as to the merits of a potential lawsuit against these officers. 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 8 of 9
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 

9

officials at CMC required him to “take all of his legal . . . documents to R&R,” despite plaintiff’s 

chrono permitting him to keep certain legal materials at his bunk for 120 days. Id. at 2. Plaintiff 

asserts that having his legal materials stored away from his bunk makes it is difficult for him to 

timely respond to developments in his multiple ongoing lawsuits. Id. 

To the extent plaintiff asserts that these officers interfered with his right of access to the 

courts, plaintiff has failed to allege an actual injury resulting from the storage location of his 

boxes of legal materials. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. He does not allege that he has missed a 

court deadline or that he has been unable to present a claim. Moreover, it appears that plaintiff 

already has a remedy for his problem in that he has a chrono permitting him to keep his legal 

materials in his bunk for 120 days.3

 Plaintiff can and should seek enforcement of this chrono by 

filing an administrative grievance within the prison system. In light of the relief available to 

plaintiff, the court does not find that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 56) is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 57) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 47), construed as a motion to add exhibits, is 

granted; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order requiring attendance of incarcerated witnesses at 

trial (ECF No. 54) is denied; and 

5. Plaintiff’s motions for “writ of mandate” (ECF Nos. 46, 50, 63), construed as motions 

for preliminary injunctive relief, are denied. 

DATED: August 27, 2015 

 

3

 A copy of the most recent chrono is attached to his motion and is dated May 27, 2015. See 

ECF No. 63 at 8. 

Case 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC Document 64 Filed 08/28/15 Page 9 of 9