Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01979/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01979-4/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

cal 

1 06cv1979

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William J. Jones,

Plaintiff,

v.

John Dovery, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv1979 LAB (AJB)

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR DIRECTION

ON HOW TO OBTAIN NORMAL RATES

THE EXPERT CHARGES FOR

DISPOSITION [DOC. NO. 66]

Plaintiff William Jones has submitted a Request for Direction on How to Obtain Normal Rates

the Expert Charges for Disposition [doc. no. 66], which was filed nunc pro tunc to September 12, 2008. 

Plaintiff appears to be asking for clarification of the Court’s Scheduling Order [doc. no. 63], which was

filed on August 18, 2008.

The Scheduling Order provides, “On or before January 16, 2009, all parties shall exchange with

all other parties a list of all expert witnesses expected to be called at trial. The list shall include the

name, address, and phone number of the expert and a brief statement identifying the subject areas as to

which the expert is expected to testify. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for

deposition and trial testimony.” (Scheduling Order ¶ 1.) Plaintiff appears to be asking the Court to

provide him with information about the rates charged by expert witnesses that he could hire to provide

testimony on his behalf. The Court is not required, nor is it permitted, to assist a pro se plaintiff in

litigating his case. See, e.g., Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 68 Filed 10/01/08 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\06cv1979_order on request for clarification.wpd 2 06cv1979

lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”); Gordon v. Barnett, 2007 WL

4358314, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2007) (stating that if the pro se plaintiff had asked the court for

legal advice, the court “could not have done more than direct plaintiff to the applicable rules of civil

procedure[]”); cf. Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995) (stating that a district court lacks

authority to appoint expert witnesses for a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis). Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to hire expert witnesses to provide testimony, he must

locate and contact them on his own behalf. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 68 Filed 10/01/08 Page 2 of 2