Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01678/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01678-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court appoint experts to conduct “forensic 

testing of poison of plaintiff’s urine and food.” (Doc. 34 at 1) Moreover, he requests the Court 

provide him a physical and mental examination because he believes the FBI has implanted microchips 

into his body. Id. at 2. He requests also that the Court provide his great nephew and great niece a 

physical examination because he asserts that they have undergone sexual assault by the FBI. Id. 

Finally, Plaintiff requests all data gathered from the microchips implanted into his body to be 

produced. Id. For reasons, not limited to the fact that the Court lacks the authority to appoint experts 

for Plaintiff, the motion is DENIED.

I. Allegations of the complaint

In his complaint, among other claims, Plaintiff alleges that Capella University improperly 

withheld from him $30,000 worth of federally funded educational grant money and failed to attribute 

to him college credits he completed elsewhere. (Doc. 1 at 11) Likewise, he complains that Capella 

failed to provide him a “book allowance” to which he was entitled.” Id. at 12.

O’DEAN M. GRANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01678 - AWI - JLT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS 

(Doc. 34)

Case 1:14-cv-01678-AWI-JLT Document 35 Filed 08/24/15 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

Defendants removed the action to this Court based upon a claim of diversity jurisdiction. 

(Doc. 1 at 2) Currently, the Court is considering the motions to dismiss filed by both parties. (Docs. 

7, 8, 10) Because these motions are under submission, the Court has not scheduled the case and 

discovery has not begun.

II. Appointment of experts

The Court is authorized to appoint an expert witness and allocate the fee between the parties 

pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Appointment of an expert 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 Fed. R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, the purpose of a court-appointed expert is to assist the trier of 

fact, not to serve as an advocate for a particular party. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, 2010 WL 2228427, *1 

(E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010) (“Rule 706 does not contemplate the appointment of, and compensation for, 

an expert to aid one of the parties”) (citation omitted).

Importantly, these principals are not altered when the Court authorizes a party to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). As the 

Fifth Circuit explained, “The plain language of section 1915 does not provide for the appointment of 

expert witnesses to aid an indigent litigant.” Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995). An 

indigent prisoner must bear the costs of litigation, including fees for his witnesses. Tedder v. Odel, 890 

F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining the use of public funds on behalf of an indigent witness is 

proper only when authorized by Congress, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “does not waive payment of fees or 

expenses for . . . witnesses”). Nevertheless, when one party is indigent, the Court has discretion to 

apportion the entirety of an expert fee to the other party. 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

(1991). 

III. Discussion and Analysis 

As explained above, the Court is not authorized to appoint an expert witness to act for Plaintiff. 

Rather, an expert may be appointed to assist the trier of fact and the costs apportioned only where it 

“will promote accurate factfinding.” Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 2011) 

(citation omitted). To determine whether an expert should be appointed, the Court should consider “a 

Case 1:14-cv-01678-AWI-JLT Document 35 Filed 08/24/15 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

party’s ability to obtain [an] independent opinion” and “whether a party’s capacity to acquire expert 

testimony is limited due to factors outside of his control, including whether he is indigent or 

incarcerated.” Id. at 1184.

Here, there is no evidence Plaintiff is indigent nor incarcerated and, moreover, there is no 

showing that the topics upon which Plaintiff seeks expert assistance, has any bearing on this case. 

Moreover, the discovery has not begun in this matter and, given the competing motions to dismiss, it is 

uncertain whether the matter will proceed beyond this preliminary stage. Thus, the motion is 

DENIED.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

In doing so, the Court notes the claims made in the motion are fantastical and not credible. The Court has serious 

concerns about Plaintiff’s current mental stability and strongly encourages him to seek out the free assistance provided by 

the Kern County Mental Health Department. Services may be obtained 24-hours per day at the crisis stabilization unit at 

the Mary K. Shell Health Center located at 2151 College Avenue, Bakersfield, CA.

Case 1:14-cv-01678-AWI-JLT Document 35 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 3