Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02426/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02426-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT VILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.S. HILL, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11CV2426-GPC(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION [DOC. NO. 54]

On February 13, 2013, Plaintiff Robert Villa, who is proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a), filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Extending Time to

Retain an Expert to Call For Trial and Motion for Court Appointment of

Expert. [Doc. No. 54.] The current deadline for Plaintiff to serve on all

parties a list of experts he expects to call at trial is February 1, 2013.

Plaintiff requests the deadline be continued because he is awaiting a

response from Dennis M. Baumann, who is described as a Gang and

Prison Procedures expert, as to whether Mr. Baumann can be retained by

Plaintiff with respect to this case. Id. 

With good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex

parte application with respect to the request for a continuance. The

11cv2426-GPC(JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02426-GPC-JMA Document 59 Filed 03/13/13 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

deadline for Plaintiff to serve a list of experts he expects to call at trial is

continued to March 22, 2013. The deadline for the exchange of

supplemental expert designations is also continued and reset for April 19,

2013.

Plaintiff also requests the Court appoint an expert in this case.

Federal Rules of Evidence 706(a) authorizes a court to appoint an expert

on its own motion or on the motion of any party. When the Court appoints

an expert, the cost is apportioned between the parties. Fed. R. Evid.

706(c)(2). 

Plaintiff contends the appointment of medical experts is necessary

“so Plaintiff’s trial won’t be biased and one sided.” [Doc. No. 54, p. 1.] This,

however, is not an adequate basis for appointment under Rule 706(a). The

role of a court appointed expert is to serve as an independent neutral

advisor in order to enlighten the Court and the jury on issues that are

excessively complex or confusing. Plaintiff has not shown a need exists for

such an expert, and the issues in this case are not sufficiently complex as

to necessitate the appointment of a court expert.

Plaintiff’s intended use of the requested expert witness appears to be

more consistent with the typical usage of witnesses testifying pursuant to

Rules 702 - 705, which permit parties to proffer qualified expert testimony

in support of their claims or defenses. While the Court is cognizant of the

challenges an IFP litigant such as Plaintiff faces in retaining an expert

witness, the IFP statute does not grant the Court the authority to appoint

expert witnesses on behalf of a party. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915; See also

Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995). As a general matter,

IFP litigants must hire their own experts. Plaintiff’s ex parte application,

/ / 

/ /

2 11cv2426-GPC(JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02426-GPC-JMA Document 59 Filed 03/13/13 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

therefore, is DENIED with respect to his request for the Court to appoint an

expert witness in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2013

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

3 11cv2426-GPC(JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02426-GPC-JMA Document 59 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 3