Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00306-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ERIC HEBBE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-0306 GEB EFB P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. In the July 17, 2000, amended complaint plaintiff claims that defendants Steven

Vance and Cheryl Pliler subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the

Eighth Amendment when, following a large riot, they imposed a lock-down on plaintiff’s

cellblock, “C-Facility,” at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP”), resulting in the

prolonged deprivation of outdoor exercise. Trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on

September 25, 2007. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint three expert witnesses: a physician,

a psychologist and an administrative law expert.

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied out-of-cell exercise for 119 consecutive days, from

November 10, 1998, until March 8, 1999. Defendants assert that C-Facility had a large main

yard with an area for running, a volleyball court, a basketball court and gym equipment. There 

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 104 Filed 03/26/07 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

also were smaller yards in C-Facility, but they were not equipped for prisoners’ recreational use.

Prisoners were not allowed to exercise on any yard, large or small, because the risk of violence

between prisoners was too great. Defendants assert that they investigated the riot and took

action to defuse the tension and end the lockdown as quickly as they could. The issues for trial

are whether the threat of violence in the aftermath of the riot constituted a genuine emergency

and whether defendants Vance and Pliler took reasonable measures to provide opportunities for

outside exercise in light of the threat of violence. 

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an individual with scientific, technical or

specialized knowledge may testify only if the testimony “will assist the trier of fact to understand

the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The court may on the motion of

a party or on its own motion, “enter an order to show cause why an expert witnesses should not 

be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations.” Fed. R. Civ. 706. Plaintiff

has not shown that for purposes of determining defendants’ liability the testimony of a doctor or

psychologist would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a disputed

fact. Although defendants’ conduct at the time was governed, at least in part, by the California

Administrative Code, federal law applies in this action. Plaintiff has not explained how

California’s regulations tend to make more or less likely any material fact in issue in this action. 

Furthermore, deciding questions of law is within the purview of the court, not expert witnesses

offering their opinion on how the court should interpret the law. For these reasons, plaintiff has

not shown that appointment of the requested experts is appropriate under Rule 706.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 15, 2006, motion is denied and the

Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate document number 96.

Dated: March 23, 2007.

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 104 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2