Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02545/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02545-11/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

09cv2545

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD YOUNG, CDCR #F-44590,

Plaintiff,

v.

LARRY SMALLS, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-CV-2545-DMS (JMA)

ORDER (1) FINDING SUBPOENAS TO

BE DEFECTIVE AND

UNENFORCEABLE; (2) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH AS

MOOT; AND (3) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

FOR EXPERT WITNESSES 

[Doc. Nos. 122, 126, 131]

Presently before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff Howard

Young: a motion to quash subpoena (Doc. No. 122), a motion for appointment of

counsel (Doc. No. 126), and a motion for expert witnesses (Doc. No. 131). 

A. Motion to Quash Subpoena

On September 21, 2011 nunc pro tunc September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

motion for quash in relation to two subpoenas issued out of this Court by counsel for

Defendants to the custodian of records for Kern Valley State Prison, located in Delano,

California, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. See Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. No. 122]; Opp’n

[Doc. No. 127], Exs. A & B. The subpoena commands the custodian of records to

produce and permit inspection of certain of Plaintiff’s medical records, as well as certain

documents from Plaintiff’s central inmate file. Plaintiff seeks an order quashing or

Case 3:09-cv-02545-DMS-KSC Document 134 Filed 10/27/11 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 1

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was made simultaneously with a motion for

summary judgment. The Court will address the latter motion by separate order.

2 09cv2545

modifying the subpoenas. 

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a subpoena for

production or inspection of documents to be issued “from the court for the district where

the production or inspection is to be made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C). Pursuant to

Rule 45(a)(2)(C), and based on the information presently before the Court, the

subpoenas should have issued from the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Accordingly, the Court finds that the subpoenas issued by Defendants out of

this Court to Kern Valley State Prison are DEFECTIVE and UNENFORCEABLE, as

they were not issued from the court for the district where the production is to be made. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED as moot.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

On September 27, 2011 nunc pro tunc September 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed an

motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. No. 126.1

 The Court denied a previous motion

for appointment of counsel on November 1, 2010. See Doc. No. 39. Plaintiff has not

demonstrated any change in circumstance that would warrant the appointment of

counsel under the standards set forth in the Court’s November 1, 2010 Order. See id.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is again DENIED without

prejudice.

C. Motion for Expert Witnesses

On October 17, 2011 nunc pro tunc October 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for

expert witnesses, in which he requests that the Court appoint a medical doctor, a

psychiatrist, and a “Hebrew-Israelite priest/rabbi” to serve as experts on Plaintiff’s

behalf. Doc. No. 131. Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes a court to

appoint an expert witness on its own motion or on the motion of any party. Fed. R.

Evid. 706(a). The appointment of such a witness is within a court's discretion. Walker

v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.

Case 3:09-cv-02545-DMS-KSC Document 134 Filed 10/27/11 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 09cv2545

1999). As a general matter, such a measure should be taken sparingly. See, e.g., Fed.

R. Civ. P. 706 Advisory Committee Notes, 1972 Proposed Rules ("[E]xperience

indicates that actual appointment is a relatively infrequent occurrence . . ."); 4 Jack B.

Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 706.02[2] (2d ed.

2005) (“It is indisputable that court appointment of experts is a rarity.”) Appointment

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); see also McKinney v.

Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991), vacated on other grounds sub nom.,

Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991) (observing that an expert witness may be

appointed if needed to significantly assist the court, and if the case involves complex

scientific issues); Trimble v. City of Phoenix Police Dept., 2006 WL 778697 (D. Ariz.

2006) ("Rule 706 permits the trial court, in an exercise of its discretion, to appoint an

independent expert to aid the trial court under certain circumstances. Reasonably

construed, it does not contemplate the appointment of, and compensation for, an expert

to aid one of the parties.") (emphases added).

This case does not involve complex scientific evidence or issues, and Plaintiff

has not demonstrated that the complexity of the case warrants the appointment of

expert witnesses to assist the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint expert

witnesses is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02545-DMS-KSC Document 134 Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 3