Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942-14/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has requested appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 64. 

The statute authorizing plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not authorize the 

expenditure of public funds for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 

210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent 

litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 

(3d Cir. 1987) (no provision to pay fees for expert witnesses). The federal courts have uniformly 

held that an indigent prisoner litigant must bear his own costs of litigation, including witnesses. 

Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211 (in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize waiver 

of fees or expenses for an indigent’s witnesses). To the extent the expenses of an expert retained 

on behalf of a prisoner litigant may be recovered if preauthorized and arranged by counsel 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 65 Filed 10/05/22 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 

2 

appointed by this court’s Pro Bono Panel, plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary 

circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. The court will therefore decline to appoint 

counsel for the purpose of obtaining an expert witness. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an 

expert witness (ECF No. 64) is denied. 

DATED: October 4, 2022 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 65 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2