Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-39/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

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR 

RULING

ECF Nos. 162 & 168

Plaintiff brought this case alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights

by denying him constitutionally adequate medical care. This order resolves two of his pending 

motions. 

First, he requests reconsideration of my denial of his request for appointment of an expert 

witness. ECF Nos. 160, 161, & 162. As I explained in my order denying his request, such 

appointment for his benefit is not permitted. “28 U.S.C. § 1915 . . . does not authorize the court 

to appoint an expert for plaintiff’s benefit to be paid by the court.” Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 

2d at 1171, 1184 n.11 (E.D. Cal. 2011). And, to the extent plaintiff argues one should be 

appointed to assist the trier of fact, I find that argument unpersuasive at this time. Currently, I see 

no need for an expert witness. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is denied.

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 179 Filed 10/18/24 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

27

28

2

Second, plaintiff requests that I rule on a previous motion to compel, ECF No. 58. I 

denied that motion in January 2022 and explained to plaintiff that he could, after other, pending 

motions were resolved, renew that motion. ECF No. 71. The pending motions were resolved in 

February 2023, when the district judge adopted my findings and recommendations. ECF No. 

109. Plaintiff then waited more than a year, until May 2024, to ask for a ruling on his motion to 

compel.1 Summary judgment motions, including his own, are now pending. ECF Nos. 165 & 

173. Plaintiff’s motion for ruling is denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, ECF No. 162, 

and for ruling, ECF No. 168, are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Such a ruling would be improper regardless. The old motion was terminated. Plaintiff 

was instructed that he could renew it or, in other words, refile it as a new motion at the 

appropriate time. 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 179 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 2