Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-16/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESSES

(ECF No. 151)

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Concurrently with the order, an

orderissued requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wished

to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion

for appointment of expert witnesses on the use of force, chemical agents, and a medical expert at

Defendants’ expense. 

The Court has the discretion to appoint an expert pursuant to Rule 706(a) of the Federal

Rules of Evidence, which reads, in part, “[t]he court may on its own motion or on the motion of any

party enter an orderto show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed . . . .” Fed. R. Evid.

706(a); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.

1999). Pursuant to Rule 702, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist

the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an

expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an

opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702.

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 153 Filed 10/25/11 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

The function of an expert witness is to assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence. 

At this early stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. Plaintiff may re-file his

motion at such time as there is evidence before the Court requiring interpretation (e.g., a pending

motion for summary judgment or a trial date). Until that time, any motion for the appointment of

an expert is premature. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an expert witness, filed October 21,

2011, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice, as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 25, 2011 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

1c20kb UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 153 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2