Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441-49/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKIE, ERVIN, CHATHAM, and 

VAN LEER,

Defendants.

No. 2:05-cv-00441-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion, (ECF No. 

222), in which he seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s 

June 5, 2015 order denying his request for an expert witnesses

concerning “the use of force and medical issues.” (Pl.’s Decl. 

Supp. Mot. Requesting Experts 1, ECF No. 203.) The Magistrate 

Judge denied Plaintiff’s request in that order stating, inter 

alia:

[Plaintiff] has not shown that such . . . 

expert[s are] needed to promote accurate 

fact-finding. He simply asserts, “Defendant’s 

experts only want to talk about the use of 

force and plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff 

wants to show the jury the use of force and 

plaintiff’s injuries with the aid of 

experts.” ECF No. 203 at 3. Plaintiff has not 

indicated what useful information a neutral 

expert would provide that will not otherwise 

be presented to the court. See Gorton v. 

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 224 Filed 07/02/15 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

Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1177-78 (E.D. 

Cal. 2011) (the court’s determination to 

appoint a neutral expert is guided by its 

consideration of whether the expert will 

promote accurate fact-finding, the ability of 

the indigent party to obtain an expert on his 

own, and the significance of the rights at 

stake in the case). 

(Order 1:26-2:6, June 5, 2015, ECF No. 213.)

Also, on June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion, (ECF 

No. 223), in which he seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate 

Judge’s June 15, 2015 order denying his request for a “neutral 

psychiatric expert to explain the effects of . . . excessive 

force on [P]laintiff[’s] mental health.” (Pl.’s Decl. Supp. Mot. 

Requesting Neutral Psychiatric Expert 1, ECF No. 212.) The 

Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request in that order 

stating, inter alia:

To appoint a neutral expert, the court must 

find that, among other things, . . . the 

expert is necessary to promote accurate factfinding. It is not clear that plaintiff is 

unqualified to testify to the effects of the 

alleged excessive force on his mental health.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay 

witness may testify to opinions that are: (1) 

rationally based on the witness’s perception; 

(2) helpful to clearly understanding the 

witness’s testimony or to determining a fact 

in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, 

technical, or other specialized knowledge 

within the scope of Rule 702. . . . To the

extent that plaintiff’s testimony will simply 

contain a description of his symptoms, 

diagnoses, or opinions that any lay person 

could make based on his symptoms, such 

testimony is admissible under Rule 701 and no 

expert is necessary to advance it. Further, 

plaintiff has not shown that this case 

presents rare circumstances which warrant the 

appointment of the court’s own expert.

(Order 1:26-2:14, June 15, 2015, ECF No. 219 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).)

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 224 Filed 07/02/15 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

Local Rule 303(f) states “[t]he standard that the 

assigned Judge shall use in [reconsideration of a Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling] is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ 

standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” “A [M]agistrate 

[J]udge’s factual findings are ‘clearly erroneous’ when the 

district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that 

a mistake has been committed.” Mackey v. Frazier Park Pub. Util. 

Dist., No. 1:12-CV-00116-LJO-JLT, 2012 WL 5304758, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) (quoting Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of 

Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997). “An order ‘is 

contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant 

statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Id. (quoting Knutson 

v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D.

Minn. 2008)).

Plaintiff has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s 

referenced decisions denying his requests for the appointment of 

expert witnesses were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See

e.g., Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAN PC, 2014 WL 

6461342, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014) (denying reconsideration 

of the magistrate judge’s decision denying the plaintiff’s 

request for the appointment of an expert witness regarding use of 

force procedures, stating “[t]he Magistrate Judge . . . correctly 

determined that Plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force are 

not so complicated as to require an expert witness”); Trufariello 

v. Long Island R. R. Co., 458 F.3d 80, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A 

witness’s testimony as to the pain he . . . experienced is 

admissible under Rule 701 to show the cause and extent of such 

injuries if it is based on the witness’s own perceptions.”).

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 224 Filed 07/02/15 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

Therefore, each of Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration, (ECF 

Nos. 222, 223), is DENIED.

Dated: July 2, 2015

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 224 Filed 07/02/15 Page 4 of 4