Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00363-7/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 

KEITH CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MALLOT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0363 GEB KJN P 

ORDER

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to interview inmate witnesses 

(ECF No. 32) and plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 33). For the 

following reasons, these motions are denied. 

 To put these motions in context, the undersigned herein sets forth plaintiff’s claims. 

Plaintiff’s Claims 

 This action is proceeding on the original complaint as to defendants Torres, Lee, Pavich, 

Mallot and Kitch. Plaintiff alleges that on July 26, 2013, he had suicidal thoughts. He was 

handcuffed and then taken from his cell and placed in a holding cage. When defendants Pavich 

and Lee arrived to take plaintiff to see medical staff, defendant Pavich placed the handcuffs on 

plaintiff’s wrists so tightly that they caused pain and cut off circulation. Defendant Pavich also 

placed leg irons on plaintiff so tightly that they caused pain and cut off circulation. Both 

Case 2:14-cv-00363-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/29/14 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

defendants refused plaintiff’s request to loosen the restraints. 

 Plaintiff was then forced to walk approximately 300 feet to a transportation vehicle. 

When plaintiff arrived at the A Facility Treatment Center, the nurse who saw him refused to 

loosen the restraints. 

 After talking to the nurse, plaintiff was taken to the sally port by defendants Pavich and 

Lee and placed in a holding cage the size of a phone booth. On the way to the holding cage, 

plaintiff heard defendant Torres say to defendants Pavich and Lee, “You didn’t see nothing. You 

didn’t hear nothing.” 

There were other inmates in nearby holding cages complaining of long waits, cold 

weather and tight restraints. Plaintiff asked A yard officers defendants Mallot, Torres and Kitch 

to loosen his restraints. These three defendants refused to help plaintiff. 

After two hours, plaintiff needed to use the restroom. Defendants Mallot, Torres and 

Kitch refused plaintiff’s request to use the restroom. Plaintiff’s shoulders began to hurt because 

he was handcuffed behind his back. Plaintiff wore only boxer shorts and a t shirt. 

After five hours, plaintiff was forced to walk back through the Treatment Center with the 

restraints cutting his skin at his wrists and ankles. Plaintiff was driven to C yard and placed on 

suicide watch. 

 When defendants Pavich and Lee removed the restraints, there were cuts, scrapes and 

bruises on plaintiff’s wrists and ankles. When plaintiff asked for medical attention, defendants 

Pavich and Lee told plaintiff that there was no medical staff on duty. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Interview Inmate Witnesses 

 Plaintiff alleges that it is difficult for him to locate the inmate witnesses who were in the A 

facility holding cage area with him. Plaintiff requests that the court order the Warden or his 

subordinates to locate those inmate witnesses and allow plaintiff to talk to them. 

 Plaintiff does not identify the inmate witnesses. As noted by defendants in their 

opposition, the California Code of Regulations contains procedures for inmate requests to 

correspond with other inmates. These procedures require the inmate requesting correspondence 

to identify the inmate with whom they wish to correspond. Plaintiff has not complied with these 

Case 2:14-cv-00363-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/29/14 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

procedures. 

 Moreover, to the extent plaintiff is requesting that the court direct the Warden to identify 

the inmates in the holding cell area with him, it is unlikely the Warden could comply with that 

order. The undersigned recently denied plaintiff’s motion to compel where he requested copies of 

the log books for inmates in the A facility holding cell area at the time of the incident as well as 

names of the inmates in the holding cells. Defendants responded that the log books containing 

the names of the inmates in the A facility holding cells could not be located. Defendants also 

represented that the search for these log books would continue. 

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s request that the Warden be ordered to identify 

and allow him to interview the inmates in the holding cell area with him is denied. 

 In the pending motion, plaintiff also attaches a holding cell log which he alleges contains 

the name of one of the inmate witnesses. The holding cell log indicates that inmate Ascensio was 

in holding cell 2 on July 26, 2013, beginning at 1900 for approximately 15 minutes. (ECF No. 32 

at 5.) Also included is the holding cell log for plaintiff. (Id.) This log indicates that plaintiff was 

placed in the holding cell at 2347, i.e., after Ascensio was released. (Id.) Therefore, inmate 

Ascensio is not a witness because he was not in an A facility holding cell at the same time as 

plaintiff. For these reasons, and because it does not appear that plaintiff requested to 

communicate with inmate Ascensio using the procedures outlined in the California Code of 

Regulations, plaintiff’s motion to communicate with inmate Ascenscio is denied. 

Motion for Expert Witness 

 Plaintiff requests that an expert witness be appointed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 

706. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint an expert doctor to testify regarding the use of 

physical restraints, the risks of being exposed to cold air and the health problems caused as a 

result of not being able to use a restroom. 

 Federal Rule of Evidence 706 authorizes the court to appoint an expert witness and 

apportion the fee among the parties. Where, as here, one party is indigent, the court has discretion 

to apportion the entire fee to the other side. McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th 

Cir. 1991), vacated and remanded on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903, 112 

Case 2:14-cv-00363-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/29/14 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

S. Ct. 291 (1991). Rule 706 allows only for the appointment of a neutral expert. It does not 

provide for the appointment of an expert on plaintiff's behalf. Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 

1171, 1177–78 (E.D.Cal. 2011). 

Rule 706 permits a court to appoint a neutral expert to assist the court to understand 

complex, technical, or esoteric subject matter. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term 

Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999); Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d at 1177. 

Plaintiff appears to request that the expert testify on his behalf. Rule 706 does not 

authorize the court to appoint an expert for plaintiff. In addition, the issues in this action are not 

complex, technical or esoteric. Plaintiff may himself testify regarding the alleged discomfort and 

pain he suffered. For these reasons, appointment of an expert is not warranted. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to interview inmates witnesses (ECF No. 32) is denied; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 33) is denied. 

Dated: October 29, 2014 

Can363.exp

Case 2:14-cv-00363-KJN Document 41 Filed 10/29/14 Page 4 of 4