Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01762-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. CHEN

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF (ECF No. 53), AND (2) DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN 

IMPARTIAL EXPERT (ECF No. 54)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Chen on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim. (ECF 

No. 22.)

On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed his pretrial statement. (ECF No. 56.) Along 

with the statement, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Prayer for Relief” (ECF No. 53), 

and a motion for the appointment of an impartial expert witness (ECF No. 54).

Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment for “actual damages in amount to be 

proven at trial,” and $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. Plaintiff provides no legal basis 

for granting him relief and, in any event, the deadline for filing any dispositive motions 

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 59 Filed 02/12/15 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

2

has long passed. (ECF No. 28.) To the extent Plaintiff’s request seeks an award of 

damages prior to trial, it will be denied. However, it appears the request may have been 

intended as part of Plaintiff’s pretrial statement. The Court therefore will treat it as 

Plaintiff’s statement of the relief he intends to seek at trial.

Plaintiff seeks an impartial expert to interpret his medical file and describe how his 

medical condition has deteriorated. An expert witness may testify to help the trier of fact 

understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 

706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the district court has discretion to appoint a 

neutral expert on its own motion or on the motion of a party. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker 

v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999). Rule 

706 does not contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as 

an advocate for Plaintiff. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL 

2228427, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010) (citation omitted).

The appointment of an independent expert is to assist the trier of fact, not a 

particular litigant. See Joe S.Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Court-Appointed Experts, at 

538 (Fed. Jud. Center 1994) (Rule 706 is meant to promote accurate fact finding where 

issues are complex, esoteric and beyond the ability of the fact finder to understand 

without expert assistance). Here, Plaintiff requests an independent expert to establish an

element of his case. Rule 706 does not exist to assist a party.

Appointment of an independent expert under Rule 706 should be reserved for 

exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice. In re Joint E.

& S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 830 F.Supp. 686, 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (allowing appointment 

of independent expert in mass tort case). This case is not such an exceptional case.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an 

independent expert will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief (ECF No. 53) is DENIED, and

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 59 Filed 02/12/15 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

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an independent expert (ECF No. 

54) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01762-MJS Document 59 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 3