UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGEL PETERSON,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-13000

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

ROCKY BURRIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT EXPERT [R. 46]

Plaintiff Angel Peterson filed a complaint in this Court alleging 

violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. [R. 1]. The

District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Peterson’s Eighth 

Amendment Claim, among others, finding that her claimed injury of high 

blood pressure was sufficiently serious. [R. 42, PgID 212]. Discovery 

ensued and Peterson now moves the Court for appointment of a 

cardiology, cardiovascular and/or cardiopathy expert witness, arguing that 

she cannot prove her case without this expert testimony. For the following 

reasons, Peterson’s motion [R. 46] is denied. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 706 governs the appointment of experts. 

Although appointment of an expert is within the Court’s broad discretion, 

(Dodson v. Wilkinson, 304 Fed. Appx. 434, 442 (6th Cir. 2008)), such 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 47 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 232
2

appointments are rare and are reserved to only those instances where 

expert testimony is necessary to aid the Court’s fact-finding. Ledford v. 

Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Generally, if scientific, 

technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact to 

understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue, a court will utilize expert 

witnesses.”). Importantly, Rule 706 is not meant to as a vehicle for the 

Court to assist the plaintiff in proving her case against the defendants. 

Tangwell v. Robb, 2003 WL 23142190, *3-*4 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 23, 2003)

(“Indeed, the appointment of an expert witness for the plaintiff in this case 

under Rule 706 would be tantamount to the Court assisting the plaintiff in 

proving his case against the defendants.”). In the same vein, 28 U.S.C. § 

1915, which governs cases brought in forma pauperis, “does not provide 

for the appointment of an expert witness to aid an indigent litigant.” 

Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995); Carter v. Mich. Dep’t of 

Corr., No. 12-12621, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133838, *20, 2013 WL 

5291567 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2013). 

Here, Peterson’s argues that she needs a cardiovascular expert in 

order to prove that the alleged mistreatment she suffered caused her high 

blood pressure. However, before causation for her injury is even relevant, 

she would have to prove deliberate indifference. Peterson’s claim of 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 47 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 233
3

deliberate indifference has not yet survived summary judgment and a

cardiovascular expert would not assist the Court in determining whether 

she has submitted enough evidence to go forward on that issue. See 

Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1354 (6th Cir. 1994) (“‘[D]eliberate

indifference’ is a legal term . . . [and it] is the responsibility of the court, not 

testifying witnesses, to define legal terms.”). Moreover, although Peterson 

requests that the Court appoint an expert at her own expense, granting her 

request would be “tantamount to the Court assisting the plaintiff in proving 

his case against the defendants.” Tangwell at *4. For these reasons, 

Peterson’s motion to appoint an expert [R. 46] is DENIED. 

Dated: September 28, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 47 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 234
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 28, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

1:14-cv-13000-TLL-EAS Doc # 47 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 235