Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02096/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02096-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff William H. Garrison (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed 

on December 27, 2013. On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment an 

independent expert. (ECF No. 8.)

The Court has the discretion to appoint an expert and to apportion costs, including the 

apportionment of costs to one side, Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel. Ford v. Long Beach Unified 

School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term 

Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999), however, where the cost would likely be 

apportioned to the government, the Court should exercise caution. The Court’s docket is 

comprised of an overwhelming number of civil rights cases filed by prisoners proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, and the facts of this case are no more extraordinary and the legal issues 

involved no more complex than those found in the majority of the cases now pending before the 

Court. Wilds v. Gines, No. C 08-03348 CW (PR), 2011 WL 737616, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 

2011); Honeycutt v. Snider, No. 3:11-cv-00393-RJC (WGC), 2011 WL 6301429, at *1 (D. Nev. 

Dec. 16, 2011) (“The appointment of experts in deliberate indifference cases is rare, and such 

WILLIAM H. GARRISON,

Plaintiff

v.

MARGARET MIMS,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-02096-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COUNSEL AND EXPERT

(ECF No. 8 )

Case 1:13-cv-02096-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 2
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

requests should be granted sparingly, particularly given the large volume of cases in which 

indigent prisoners allege claims under the Eighth Amendment related to medical care, and the 

substantial expense defendants may have to bear if courts were to appoint experts in such cases.”) 

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

time to appoint an expert witness. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s February 27, 2014 motion for the 

appointment an independent expert is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02096-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 2