Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01530-13/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

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

Plaintiff Dale L. Cottrell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of an independent expert to 

refute Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. 

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 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). Indeed, 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 

DALE L. COTTRELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

INDEPENDENT EXPERT WITNESS

[ECF No. 58]

Case 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB Document 59 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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

independent expert in mass tort case). 

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

Thus, the Court may not appoint an expert witness to advocate for Plaintiff at trial. Defendants have 

filed a motion for summary judgment supported with declarations from Defendants and medical expert 

testimony by non-Defendant, Dr. Barnett. Plaintiff submits that appointment of an independent 

cardiologist expert will assist the Court in understanding why it should not grant summary judgment 

upon reliance of the declarations submitted by Defendants. At this juncture, without a thorough 

review of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court cannot determine whether 

appointment of an independent medical expert is necessary to resolve Defendants’ motion. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a appointment of an independent expert witness shall be 

DENIED, without prejudice, to later renewal by Plaintiff and/or sua sponte renewal by the Court if 

deemed necessary to resolve Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In the interest of justice, 

Plaintiff is granted an extension of thirty (30) days to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file a timely opposition will be deemed a 

waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

Local Rule 230(l). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB Document 59 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2