Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00487/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00487-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORIANO MILLARE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

L. GONZALES, Correctional Officer; H. 

ASBURY, Manager/Supervisor; R. 

EBALO, Registered Nurse; G. CASIAN, 

Physician; A. JAMES, Vocational Nurse; 

S. PUCKETT, Registered or Vocational 

Nurse; G. WILEY, Nurse Practitioner; D. 

McARTHUR, Registered Nurse; M. 

HODGESON, Radiology Technician; A. 

CASTRILLON, Radiology Technician; 

DOE 1, Director of Radiological Services; 

S. ROBERTS, Chief Medical Executive; 

L. CIBROWSKI, Manager/Supervisor; P. 

H. BRACAMONTE, Manager Supervisor; 

DOE 2, Health Care Manager; DOE 3, 

Chief Medical Officer; DOE 4, Health 

Care Standards Compliance Coordinator; 

DOE 5, Correctional Health Services 

Administrator; DOE 6, Supervising 

Registered Nurse; DOE 7, Associate 

Warden, Health Care Operations; R. 

OLSEN, Appeals Coordinator; J. 

RAMIREZ, Appeals Coordinator; DOE 8, 

Manager/Supervisor Associate Warden; 

DOE 9, Manager Supervisor Chief Deputy 

Warden, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Dkt. No. 73]; 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXPERT WITNESS [Dkt. No. 75]; 

(3) REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL A MORE 

DEFINITE ANSWER; and 

(4) SUA SPONTE EXTENDING THE 

TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE SUBPOENA TO THE U.S. 

MARSHAL. 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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

Plaintiff Moriano Millare, a California inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis (IFP), filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations by multiple 

defendants of his civil rights. Most of the claims revolve around Millare being allegedly 

exposed to radiation during x-ray examinations, being assigned to a top bunk even though 

he had a pre-existing broken leg and neck and back pain, and excessive force used on him 

in connection with his attendance at medical appointments. Millare recently filed 

multiple motions; the court addresses each in turn below. 

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

Millare asks this court to appoint counsel for these reasons: (1) he cannot afford 

counsel; (2-4) the issues are complex; (5-6) he has limited access to scientific facts 

regarding radiation and dermatology; (7) Defendants continue to perform x-rays on him; 

(8-10) defendants Ciborowski and Wiley have yet to be served, Ramirez was only 

recently served, and extensive discovery remains to be taken on these three Defendants; 

(11-13) Plaintiff says he needs to use expert witnesses and take depositions; and (14) 

Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint. 

To address some of these points, defendant Cibrowski was served on April 11, 

2017 [Dkt. No. 77] and the court has taken steps to facilitate service of the complaint on 

defendant Wiley [Dkt. No. 71 and section IV below]. The remaining relevant points for 

requesting counsel are that Plaintiff is indigent and the issues are complex and require 

extensive discovery. 

A. Legal Standard. 

The Constitution provides no absolute right to the appointment of counsel in any 

civil proceeding. Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). 

In pro se and in forma pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority “to 

make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 310 (1989). But they do have the discretion to request that an attorney 

represent an indigent civil litigant upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. Of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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

(9th Cir. 2004). 

 A finding of exceptional circumstances “requires an evaluation of both the 

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.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 

Cir. 1983). Neither of the Wilborn factors are dispositive, and they must be viewed 

together before the district court reaches its decision. Id. 

B. Discussion. 

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits. 

A plaintiff that provides no evidence of his likelihood of success at trial fails to 

satisfy the first factor of the Wilborn test. Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. 

Cal. 1993). Here, there is very little before the court regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s 

case, other than the assertions in the complaint and this motion. As a result, it is difficult 

at this time to determine the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. 

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the first Wilborn factor. 

2. Plaintiff’s Ability to Articulate His Claims. 

Where a pro se civil rights plaintiff shows he has a good grasp of basic litigation 

procedure and has articulated his claims adequately, he does not demonstrate the 

exceptional circumstances required for the appointment of counsel. See Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). As another court in this district noted, there is 

“no doubt [that] most pro se litigants find it difficult to articulate their claims and would 

be better served with the assistance of counsel.” Garcia v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections & 

Rehab., 2013 WL 485756, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013). But it is for this reason that 

federal courts employ procedures that protect a pro se litigant’s rights. See Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In pro se civil rights cases, a court must construe the 

pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los 

Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, where a pro se plaintiff 

can articulate his claims in light of their relative complexity, there are no exceptional 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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

circumstances to justify appointment of counsel. Garcia, 2013 WL 485756, at *1, citing 

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

 The purported complexity of this case and required use of experts have not 

prevented Plaintiff from articulating his claims thus far. This court reviewed Plaintiff’s 

complaint and finds that the issues he raises are not particularly complex. The court 

understands his claims and the relief sought. Plaintiff also demonstrated that he has a 

good grasp on basic litigation procedure, as evidenced by the pleadings and 16 motions 

he has filed with this court thus far, some of which have been granted. 

 The court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently put on his case thus far in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. As for his argument that he lacks funds and 

needs counsel to work with expert witnesses to prepare this case for trial, such an issue is 

common to most prisoners, and does not amount to exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., 

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990) (denying appointment of 

counsel where plaintiff complained that he had limited access to law library and lacked a 

legal education). 

C. Conclusion and Order. 

Viewing the Wilborn factors together, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of 

success on the merits of his case or that he cannot articulate his claims and litigate this 

action pro se. Therefore, Plaintiff has not established the exceptional circumstances 

required for the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1). 

 The court, therefore, DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 

II. Motion for Expert Witness. 

Millare asks this court to appoint an expert witness to help the trier of fact 

understand the evidence and determine the facts at issue regarding his claims and 

purported suffering of skin damage, thinning, scars, an enduring itch, and intentional 

exposure to radiation by failure to use a lead blanket during x-ray procedures. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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

A. Legal Standard. 

 An expert witness may testify to help the trier of fact determine the evidence or a 

fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. 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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18795, *2 (E.D.Cal. 2006) (citation omitted). 

 The IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not waive the requirement of the payment 

of fees or expenses for witnesses in a § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Dixon v. Ylst, 

990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). “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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13061, *6 (D. 

Ariz. 2006) (citation omitted). 

B. Discussion and Order. 

 In his request to appoint an expert, Plaintiff argues that an expert’s testimony is 

needed to understand the complex medical issues in this case. He explains that a jury 

will need an unbiased expert’s help to understand those issues. Specifically, he argues 

that an expert is needed to (1) determine the short and long term effects of soft tissue 

exposure to radiation from x-rays; (2) audit the CDCR’s use of protective devices during 

x-rays for inmates; and (3) diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s skin condition. 

Presumably the facts regarding Plaintiff’s medical situation would go toward his 

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs. To prevail on a 

deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants acted with deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1983). Deliberate indifference has a subjective component because it requires the court 

to “consider the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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

defendant’s response to that need.” Levi, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at 3 (citation omitted). 

In the context of such a claim, “the question of whether the prison officials displayed 

deliberate indifference to [Plaintiff's] serious medical needs [does] not demand that the 

jury consider probing, complex questions concerning medical diagnosis and judgment.” 

Id. Courts have declined to appoint an expert under such circumstances. Id. Therefore, 

Plaintiff's request for appointment of a medical expert witness is DENIED. 

III. Motion to Compel a More Definite Answer. 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to provide more definite answers to 

discovery. To the extent the parties have not yet met and conferred on any of the requests 

in dispute, defense counsel must arrange and hold a telephonic meet and confer with 

Plaintiff by May 11, 2017. Defendants then must file a notice of resolution of any of the 

items in dispute, along with an opposition to any outstanding issues, by May 18, 2017. 

The court will then take the matter under submission. 

In this motion Plaintiff also asks to extend the May 27, 2017 discovery deadline by 

three months for defendant Ramirez. Defendant Ramirez did not file an answer in this 

action until February 14, 2017. The court finds good cause to continue the discovery 

deadline as to defendant Ramirez only to June 27, 2017, as Plaintiff has already started 

discovery regarding Ramirez, continuing the date to June 27 gives him three months from 

now to finish that discovery, and that date is before the motion filing cutoff. 

IV. Sua Sponte Extension of Time to Provide Subpoena. 

On March 29, 2017 the court issued an order that granted Plaintiff’s motion to 

issue a subpoena to be served on third party Maxim Healthcare, so that he can subpoena 

from them the forwarding address for defendant Wiley. The court directed the clerk to 

issue the subpoena and ordered Plaintiff to fill it out and then provide it to the U.S. 

Marshal by May 1, 2017. The clerk did not mail out the subpoena, however, until April 

25, 2017. See Dkt. No. 78 (summons issued for defendant Wiley and mailed out to 

Plaintiff along with subpoena). The court, thus, sua sponte CONTINUES the May 1, 

2017 deadline for Plaintiff to provide the subpoena to the Marshal with the location 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

16cv487 MMA (NLS) 

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

information for Maxim Healthcare to June 1, 2017. The Marshal will have 30 days from 

receipt of the subpoena to serve it on Maxim Healthcare. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 27, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 81 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7