Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814-32/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

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

In this matter, plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith is proceeding against Defendant Goss for 

violation of his right to due process and for retaliation against Defendants Goss and Langler.

1

 (Docs.

31, 42, 47, 114, 126.) On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking examination by a 

podiatrist per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a). Defendants filed an opposition on December 23, 

2015 (Doc. 123) to which Plaintiff failed to reply despite lapse of more than sufficient time. The 

motion is deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l). 

Rule 35 provides for examination of opposing parties upon a showing of good cause where a 

court may "order a party whose mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a 

physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner," . . . . As correctly noted 

by Defendants, Rule 35 is a discovery tool and is intended as a means for a party to obtain a 

 

1 A separately issued Findings and Recommendations recommends granting Defendant Byers' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's 

claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and is currently awaiting objections and/or adoption. 

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. GOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AND 

EXAMINATION BYAN EXPERT WITNESS 

(Doc. 118)

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 133 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

mental/medical examination of the opposing party -- not of one's own person. Plaintiff is free to 

obtain whatever examination of himself that he chooses (consistent with the policies and procedures of 

the facility where he is housed) at his own expense.

Plaintiff fares no better under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 

provides for court appointment of an expert witness upon a party's motion or on its own volition. AIf 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will 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 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 costs would likely be 

apportioned to the government, the Court should exercise caution. 

Plaintiff=s pro se, in forma pauperis status alone is not grounds for the appointment of an expert 

witness to assist Plaintiff with his case and Rule 706 is not meant to provide an avenue to avoid the in 

forma pauperis statute and its prohibition against using public funds to pay for the expenses of 

witnesses. Manriquez v. Huchins, No. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC, 2012 WL 5880431, at *12 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted), nor does Rule 706 contemplate court 

appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an advocate for Plaintiff, Faletogo v. Moya, 

No. 12cv631 GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 524037, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2013) (quotation marks 

omitted). 

The appointment of an expert witness under Rule 706 is intended to benefit the trier of fact, not 

a particular litigant, and here, the medical care issue is not of such complexity that the Court requires 

the assistance of a neutral expert at this time. Faletogo, 2013 WL 524037, at *2; Bontemps v. Lee, No. 

2:12-cv-0771 KJN P, 2013 WL 417790, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013); Honeycutt, 2011 WL 

6301429, at *1; Wilds, 2011 WL 737616, at *4; Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 

WL 2228427, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2010). Further, a Findings and Recommendation to dismiss 

Plaintiff's only medical claim under the Eighth Amendment recently issued and is awaiting objections 

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 133 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

and/or adoption by the District Court. Assuming that the Findings and Recommendation is adopted, 

there will be no medical issues in this action for the trier of fact to benefit from appointment of an 

expert witness.

While there are currently no pending matters in which the Court requires special assistance, 

Ford, 291 F.3d at 1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071, Plaintiff is not foreclosed from requesting 

appointment of an expert witness if the pending Findings and Recommendation is not adopted and his 

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Byers is not dismissed and when the issues in any 

medical issues that remain in this action are presented to the trier of fact. Moreover, the Court is no 

confronted with any current need for explanation by an expert. Accordingly, Plaintiff=s motion for the 

appointment of an expert witness is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 133 Filed 03/18/15 Page 3 of 3