Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321-10/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX ESPINO, JR., Civil No. 05cv2321-WQH(POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT

OF EXPERT WITNESS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 115.]

v.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, et al.,

Defendant.

On October 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for assignment of an expert witness. 

This is in essence a motion for reconsideration since Plaintiff previously filed the same motion on

January 12, 2007. Defendants filed an opposition on October 31, 2007. 

On January 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint an expert witness. On January 17,

2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for assignment of an expert witness concluding that the

facts in the case are not complex that a trier of fact would require the assistance of an expert witness

on tasers to understand the evidence or make a fair determination of a fact in issue. (Doc. No. 37.) 

In a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff must show “what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exit, or were not shown, upon such prior

application.” Civ. Local R. 7.1(i); see also Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Coast Packing Co., 236 F.

Supp.2d 1130, 1137 (C.D. 2002) (holding that a motion for reconsideration may not repeat “any oral

or written argument”). 

Plaintiff argues that in his previous motion he failed to attach relevant documents that would

have probably gotten his motion granted. The exhibits are supporting documents that relate to his

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 123 Filed 10/31/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

claim for excessive force during Plaintiff’s arrest. However, his argument that the case is complex

is the same. In his motion, Plaintiff does not present any new or different facts to justify an

appointment of an expert witness. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for

assignment of an expert witness without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2007

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 123 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2