Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 24, 2005, request

for appointment of a qualified medical examiner.

 The court has broad discretion to appoint experts in a litigation, and in cases

where a party is indigent, the court can apportion all of the cost to the non-indigent party. 

McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991), judgment vacated on other

grounds, Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903, 112 S.Ct. 291 (1991), on remand initial judgment

reaffirmed, 951 F.2d 853, aff'd. sub nom. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2745

(1993). However, in order for prisoner litigation to have some economic sanity, the court's

discretion to appoint expert witnesses at the cost of the party who already has such witnesses, i.e.,

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 42 Filed 10/26/05 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

2

ultimately the state's taxpayers, should be exercised in only extraordinary situations. In another

context, such was the holding of In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litigation, 830 F.Supp. 686,

693 (E. & S. D.N.Y. 1993). 

The standard that this court employs in prisoner litigation, to determine whether

the situation is an extraordinary one, encompasses two factors: (1) indigency, and (2) a showing

that an expert is necessary to prevent a potential miscarriage of justice, i.e., the court believes

there is a significant possibility that an expert would change the outcome of the case in favor of

the party who requests the expert assistance. The latter showing is necessarily difficult in that a

plaintiff quite often would desire to have access to the expert before having to make such a

showing. However, this court has appointed experts in prisoner litigation previously and has

been able to discern the appropriate showing from the medical records or other exhibits))

generally, gross disparities in proper conduct/treatment are evident to the lay person.

Plaintiff has not shown a significant possibility that an expert would change the

outcome of the case in his favor. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a courtappointed qualified medical examiner filed August 24, 2005 is denied.

DATED: 10/25/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kf

wood1225.31c

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 42 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2