Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00108-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barahas
Defendant
Diaz
Defendant
Michael Neil Jacobsen
Plaintiff
Monica
Defendant
People of the State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00108-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR OUTSIDE EXAMINATION AND 

ACCESS TO A COPY MACHINE

(Doc. 27) 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on claims for relief under section 1983: (1) against 

Sergeant Diaz for use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, violation of Plaintiff's right of access to the courts, and 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (2) against Officer Barahas for excessive force in 

violation of the Eight Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and 

against Nurse Monica for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 16, 17.) On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to order 

CDCR to send Plaintiff for an outside medical examination and to provide him weekly access to a 

copy machine.1 (Doc. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order that an outside physician examine the body parts he 

 

1 Defendants filed an opposition to which Plaintiff has not replied despite lapse of more than sufficient time. (Doc. 

28.) The motion is deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l).

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 31 Filed 03/11/15 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

alleges sustained injuries in this action.2 Federal Rule of Evidence 706 ("Rule 706") provides for 

court appointment of an expert witness upon a party's motion or on its own volition. AIf 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. 

The Court has the discretion to appoint an expert and to apportion costs, including the 

apportionment of costs to one side, Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel. Ford v. Long Beach Unified 

School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term 

Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999), however, where the costs would likely be 

apportioned to the government, the Court should exercise caution. Plaintiff=s pro se, in forma

pauperis status alone is not grounds for the appointment of an expert witness to assist Plaintiff 

with his case and Rule 706 is certainly not a meant to provide an avenue to avoid the in forma 

pauperis statute and its prohibition against using public funds to pay for the expenses of 

witnesses. Manriquez v. Huchins, No. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC, 2012 WL 5880431, at *12 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted), nor does Rule 706 

contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an advocate for 

Plaintiff, Faletogo v. Moya, No. 12cv631 GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 524037, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 

23, 2013) (quotation marks omitted). 

The appointment of an expert witness under Rule 706 is intended to benefit the trier of 

fact, not a particular litigant, and here, the medical care issue is not of such complexity that the 

Court requires the assistance of a neutral expert at this time. Faletogo, 2013 WL 524037, at *2; 

Bontemps v. Lee, No. 2:12-cv-0771 KJN P, 2013 WL 417790, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013); 

Honeycutt, 2011 WL 6301429, at *1; Wilds, 2011 WL 737616, at *4; Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 

 

2 While Plaintiff seeks a medical examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, he clearly desires a courtappointed expert witness under Federal Rules of Evidence 706 since there is no evidence before the Court that 

Defendants have requested examination of Plaintiff's condition. If Defendants desire to have Plaintiff examined, they 

may move for an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. But this Rule does not provide a mechanism for 

Plaintiff to secure his own examination. 

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 31 Filed 03/11/15 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

08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL 2228427, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2010). Moreover, there are 

currently no pending matters in which the Court requires special assistance. Ford, 291 F.3d at 

1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071. However, Plaintiff is not foreclosed from requesting 

appointment of an expert witness if/when the issues in this action are presented to the trier of fact.

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that he be granted immediate injunctive relief ordering 

"Wasco State Prison to allow [him] to make photo copies at least once a week, if needed, to 

prepare motions . . . ." (Doc. 27.) 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as an initial matter, it 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 

U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 

power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 

U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 

the Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.@ 

Regardless, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general or over Plaintiff=s issues of obtaining copies of documents for filing in this 

action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 

States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this 

action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 129 

S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

The claims which Plaintiff is proceeding on in this action allegedly occurred at the Fresno 

County Jail. Plaintiff is currently housed at Wasco State Prison (WSP). Accordingly, Plaintiff 

lacks standing to seek relief directed at remedying his current conditions of confinement at WSP. 

Thus, Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive relief must be denied for lack of jurisdiction over "Wasco 

State Prison" in this action. 

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 31 Filed 03/11/15 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of an 

expert witness and for weekly copies of his legal documents, filed on December 31, 2014 (Doc. 

27), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00108-JLT Document 31 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 4