Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-31/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

ANDREW LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-5595 OWW DLB P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR A COURT APPOINTED EXPERT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Doc. 198]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint upon which this action

proceeds on January 29, 2004. This case is scheduled for a Pretrial Conference on March 28,

2008.

On February 19, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for a court appointed expert and for

appointment of counsel. Specifically, plaintiff seeks a court appointed expert, pursuant to Rule

706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and requests that the court appoint Dr. Allen Clyde,

podiatrist, to serve as an expert witness. 

A. Request for Appointment of an Expert Witness by the Court

The district court has the discretion to appoint an expert pursuant to Rule 706(a) of the

Federal Rules of Evidence, which reads, in part, “The court may on its own motion or on the

motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed .

. . .” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 200 Filed 02/27/08 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

F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 702, “If scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a

fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Plaintiff is seeking the appointment of an expert witness to testify at trial. The court

declines to appoint an expert pursuant to Rule 706. This action involves allegations of deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges

that defendant acted with deliberate indifference by failing to provide him with his medically

prescribed shoes. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.

The court finds that the legal issues involved in this action are not particularly complex. 

See Walker at 1071 (finding that the district court’s decision to appoint an independent expert to

assist the court in evaluating contradictory evidence about an elusive disease of unknown origin

was appropriate); see also Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 359 (7th Cir. 1997) (trier of fact’s

determination of deliberate indifference not so complicated that an expert was required to

establish pro se inmate’s case). The decision whether or not to admit expert testimony does not

rest upon the existence or strength of the expert’s opinion but rather whether the expert testimony

will assist the trier of fact in drawing its own conclusion as to a fact in issue. United States v.

Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, the court finds that the issues are not so

complex as to require the testimony of an expert witness to assist the trier of fact.

In addition, plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is, presumably, unable to

compensate an expert witness. Pursuant to Rule 706, the court has discretion to apportion costs

in the manner directed by the court, including the apportionment of costs to one side. Fed. R.

Evid. 706(b). In instances such as this, where the government would likely bear the cost, the

court should exercise caution. The court has a burgeoning docket of civil rights cases filed by

prisoners proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The facts of this case are no more

extraordinary and the legal issues involved no more complex than those found in the majority of

the cases now pending before this court. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of an expert witness by this court is denied.

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 200 Filed 02/27/08 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

Even if plaintiff wishes to call his own expert witness at trial, by order dated August 27,

2007, plaintiff was required to file and serve his expert witness designations and expert reports

by December 30, 2007. Plaintiff has failed to abide by the court’s deadline and therefore, may

not call his own expert witness at trial. However, plaintiff may subpoena Dr. Harvey Purtz as a

witness. 

On March 26, 2007, the Court issued its Second Scheduling Order. In the Order, the

Court advised plaintiff of the procedure for obtaining the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses

who refuse to testify voluntarily. The Court advised plaintiff that he must first notify the Court in

writing of the name and location of each unincarcerated witness and that the Court would then

calculate the travel expense for each unincarcerated witness and notify plaintiff of the amount(s). 

 Dr. Purtz is located in Fresno, California. The round trip mileage is 28 miles. The

mileage rate is $.445 per mile. Accordingly, for Dr. Purtz, plaintiff must submit a money order

made payable to the witness in the amount of $52.46 ($40.00 witness fee plus $12.46 mileage).

Plaintiff is reminded that the subpoenas will not be served upon the unincarcerated

witness by the United States Marshal unless the money order is tendered to the court. Because

no statute authorizes the use of public funds for these expenses in civil cases, the tendering of

witness fees and travel expenses is required even if the party was granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. Due to apparent delay in getting the information to plaintiff, the Court shall

extend the deadline for receipt of the funds. If plaintiff wishes to have the Marshal serve any

unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily, plaintiff must submit the money

orders to the court no later than the date of the pretrial conference, March 28, 2008. 

B. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court

has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in §

1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland,

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating th

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 200 Filed 02/27/08 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

counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that

he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for

the appointment of counsel is hereby denied.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an expert witness by the court is

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff must submit the money orders to the court no later than the date of the

pretrial conference, March 28, 2008, if plaintiff wishes to have the Marshal serve

any unincarcerated witnesses who refuse to testify; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 200 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 4