Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01623/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01623-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Willie Earl Key, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nicholas Gombar, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01623-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On December 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 71) addressing for the 

fourth time the Plaintiff’s request for Taser information. The Court also granted the 

Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Further Requests for Taser Information. Id. Pending 

before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Duty Status Report of Taser #X3000P5C; the 

appointment of Expert Witnesses and an Investigator (Doc. 70). 

 Plaintiff’s request for the taser information is summarily denied as Plaintiff has 

failed to present newly discovered evidence, demonstrated the Court committed clear 

error, or that the prior four decisions were manifestly unjust. School Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah County v. A C and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 

7.2(g)(1). 

 Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a Taser expert, a medical doctor with expertise 

in burns, and an investigator to assist Plaintiff in developing his case. Plaintiff argues 

that such witnesses would not only assist the Plaintiff but also the Court. 

 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not provide for the Court to appoint 

Case 2:13-cv-01623-DJH-ESW Document 72 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

expert witnesses or investigators at government expense to assist the Plaintiff. Dixon v. 

Ylst, 990 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1993) (no authority to pay witness fees); 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Nor does Plaintiff cite legal authority in support of his request. Though Federal Rule of 

Evidence 706 permits the Court to appoint independent experts on the Court’s own 

motion or at the request of a party, the exercise of such judicial discretion is rare. The 

purpose of Rule 706 is to aid the Court or jury in resolving the issues. 

 Accordingly, relevant to the exercise of discretion to appoint an expert are several factors associated with the trier-of-fact’s 

 need for expert testimony. The most important factor in favor of appointing an expert is that the case involves a complex or esoteric subject beyond the trier-of-fact’s ability to adequately understand without expert assistance. 

Wright & Miller, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6304 (2004). 

 At this time, it is not apparent to the Court that an expert in burn scars or tasers is 

required to resolve issues pertinent to this case. The case is not complex. It presents no 

esoteric issues. A trial has not been set. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the necessity 

to the Court of the experts he seeks at this stage of the proceedings. Nor is an 

investigator of any assistance to the Court in resolving the issues before it. 

 Therefore, it is ordered denying Plaintiff’s Request for Duty Status Report of 

Taser #X3000P5C; the appointment of Expert Witnesses and an Investigator (Doc. 70). 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01623-DJH-ESW Document 72 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 2