Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441-45/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 

VERNON WAYNE MCNEAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EVERT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-cv-0441-GEB-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has requested the appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 203. For the 

reasons that follow, the request is denied. 

 Plaintiff states that he “cannot aid himself in explaining the use of force and the medical 

issues that are involved in this case.” ECF No. 203 at 2. As the court has explained in prior 

orders (see ECF No. 201), no statute authorizes the court to subsidize fees for an expert to testify 

on plaintiff’s behalf. While Federal Rule of Evidence 706 authorizes the court to appoint a 

neutral expert witness and apportion the fee among the parties, the plaint test of plaintiff’s motion 

indicates that he seeks an expert to testify on his behalf, rather than a neutral expert. Further, 

even if plaintiff sought the appointment of a neutral expert, he has not shown that such an expert 

is needed to promote accurate fact-finding. He simply asserts, “Defendant’s experts only want to 

talk about the use of force and plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff wants to show the jury the use of 

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 213 Filed 06/05/15 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

force and plaintiff’s injuries with the aid of experts.” ECF No. 203 at 3. Plaintiff has not 

indicated what useful information a neutral expert would provide that will not otherwise be 

presented to the court. See Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1177-78 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (the 

court’s determination to appoint a neutral expert is guided by its consideration of whether the 

expert will promote accurate fact-finding, the ability of the indigent party to obtain an expert on 

his own, and the significance of the rights at stake in the case). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion 

for the appointment of an expert (ECF No. 203) is denied. 

 So ordered. 

Dated: June 5, 2015. 

 

 

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 213 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 2