Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06338/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06338-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRI BROTHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEHACHAPI PRISON MEDICAL

PROVIDER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6338 REC SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT

MEDICAL EXPERT

(Doc. 66)

Plaintiff Henri Brother (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2005, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking the appointment of an independent medical expert to conduct an examination of

plaintiff. With the exception of citations to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, plaintiff fails to set

forth the authority upon which his request is based. Plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 56 is misplaced.

Rule 56 governs motions for summary judgment. At this juncture, there are no such motions

pending before the court. Further, Rule 56 does not authorize the court to appoint an expert witness

for plaintiff.

The district court has the discretion to appoint an expert pursuant to Rule 706(a) of the

Federal Rules of Evidence, which reads, in part, “[t]he court may on its own motion or on the motion

of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed . . . .” Fed.

R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071

(9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 702, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will

Case 1:03-cv-06338-AWI -SMS Document 74 Filed 05/16/05 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

assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form

of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702.

The function of an expert witness is to testify at trial to assist the trier of fact in understanding

the evidence. At this early stage in the proceedings, plaintiff’s motion is premature. Plaintiff may

re-file his motion at such time that it appears this matter will be set for trial. Until that time, any

motion for the appointment of an expert is premature. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an expert witness, filed

March 28, 2005, is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06338-AWI -SMS Document 74 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2