Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00121/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00121-9/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 

JAMES DAVID LOGAN, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EVALYN HORWITZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0121 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for appointment of 

counsel (ECF Nos. 104, 108, 110), requests to amend the complaint (ECF Nos. 107, 109), and 

motion to appoint an expert witness (ECF No. 110). 

Plaintiff has again requested appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 104,108, 110. These 

requests will again be denied. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack 

authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United 

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district 

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell 

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

Case 2:15-cv-00121-MCE-AC Document 111 Filed 03/01/17 Page 1 of 4
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

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits and has so far been capable 

of articulating his claims despite his failure to follow the court’s instructions. The court therefore 

does not find the required exceptional circumstances and the requests for counsel will be denied 

without prejudice. 

Plaintiff also moves for leave to amend his complaint. ECF Nos. 107, 109. It appears that 

he is seeking to amend the complaint to add claims based upon pain management and medication 

issues with Doctor Ramada and psychiatric technician Badertcher. ECF No. 107 at 1; ECF No. 

109 at 1, 3, 5, 12. Not only has plaintiff failed to provide a copy of the proposed amended 

complaint, but neither the claims nor defendants are properly joined because the claims do not 

involve the same defendants or arise out of the same transaction or occurrence identified in the 

currently operative complaint. L.R. 137(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18; Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. In other 

words, the new claims and defendants are not related to the claims currently in front of the court. 

The request for leave to amend is therefore denied. Plaintiff is advised that he is not allowed to 

simply add new defendants and claims to this case every time that medical staff do something that 

he does not like or that he disagrees with. 

Finally, plaintiff moves to appoint an expert witness. ECF No. 110. Federal Rule of 

Evidence 706 authorizes the appointment of a neutral expert witness, with expenses shared by the 

parties. The appointment of an independent expert witness pursuant to Rule 706 is within the 

court’s discretion, Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 

(9th Cir. 1999), and may be appropriate when “scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue,” 

Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-59 (7th Cir. 1997). However, the statute authorizing 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for expert 

Case 2:15-cv-00121-MCE-AC Document 111 Filed 03/01/17 Page 2 of 4
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

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). 

In this case, it appears that plaintiff is seeking to have the court appoint an expert witness 

to advocate on his behalf, which is not authorized by Rule 706. However, even if plaintiff is truly 

seeking a neutral expert, the court does not find that the issues in this case are complicated such 

that the testimony of a neutral expert would be warranted and the request is denied. To the extent 

the expenses of an expert retained on behalf of a prisoner litigant may be recovered if 

preauthorized and arranged by counsel appointed by this court’s Pro Bono Panel, as determined 

above, plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to warrant appointment of 

counsel. Moreover, plaintiff’s request for an expert to testify regarding unspecified issues does 

not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. The court will 

therefore decline to appoint counsel for the purpose of obtaining an expert witness. 

Finally, it appears that plaintiff may be seeking to request discovery or attempting to move 

to compel discovery related to his medical and C-File from July 18, 2013, to the present. ECF 

No. 110. If plaintiff is attempting to make a request for discovery, discovery requests are to be 

served on counsel for defendant and were due by January 5, 2017. ECF No. 78. If plaintiff is 

trying to compel discovery responses, then he must file a motion in the proper form. In other 

words, he must file a motion to compel that tells the court which discovery request he wants an 

answer to and why the answer the defendant gave was not good enough. The current deadline for 

filing motions to compel is March 6, 2017. Id. Because it appears that plaintiff may be 

attempting to file a motion to compel, the court will sua sponte extend the deadline for filing 

motions to compel. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00121-MCE-AC Document 111 Filed 03/01/17 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 104, 108, 110) are denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint (ECF Nos. 107, 109) are denied. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint an expert witness (ECF No. 110) is denied. 

4. The deadline for filing motions to compel is extended by fourteen days. Motions to 

compel shall be filed by March 20, 2017. 

DATED: March 1, 2017 

Case 2:15-cv-00121-MCE-AC Document 111 Filed 03/01/17 Page 4 of 4