1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NORMAN DORISE, Case No. 09-10042

Plaintiff, Marianne O. Battani

vs. United States District Judge

ELLA BULLEA CUMMINGS, et al., Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS (Dkt. 32)

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

an expert witness (Dkt. 32). Plaintiff, an inmate currently at the Chippewa

Correctional Facility, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming

violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff

alleges that certain City of Detroit police officers used excessive force on him and

that other defendants failed to properly train and supervise those officers. Id. On

May 8, 2009, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes by

District Judge Marianne O. Battani. (Dkt. 11). In support of his request for an

expert witness, plaintiff states that defendants’ lawyers may request him to undergo

2:09-cv-10042-MOB-MJH Doc # 41 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 216
2

a physical or mental examination, and therefore, he will require an expert witness

to be appointed on his behalf. (Dkt. 32). 

As this Court has recognized, the use of court-appointed experts is relatively

infrequent and most judges “view the appointment of an expert as an extraordinary

activity that is appropriate only in rare instances.” Tangwall v. Robb, 2003 WL

23142190 (E.D. Mich. 2003), quoting, Joe S. Cecil & Thomas E. Willging,

Court-Appointed Experts: Defining the Role of Experts Appointed Under Federal

Rule of Evidence 706, 4-5 (Fed. Jud. Center 1993). Indeed, the Court should

appoint an expert only in the most “compelling” of circumstances. Id., citing,

Applegate v. Dobrovir, Oakes & Gephardt, 628 F.Supp. 378, 383 (D. D.C. 1985). 

Based on the Court’s review of plaintiff’s motion and the issues presented in this

case, no such extraordinary or compelling circumstances are presented here. 

Moreover, defendants have not moved this Court for any physical or mental

examination to be performed on plaintiff. Thus, the undersigned DENIES

plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of expert.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are

required to file any objections within 10 days of service as provided for in 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2). A party may not assign as error any

2:09-cv-10042-MOB-MJH Doc # 41 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 217
3

defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). 

Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party

objects and state the basis of the objection. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2),

objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Date: October 23, 2009 s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 23, 2009 I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: John A. Schapka and Nellie J.L. Lee, and I certify

that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following nonECF participant(s): Norman Dorise, # 653633, KINROSS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, 16770 S. Watertower Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788.

s/James P. Peltier 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk

U.S. District Court

600 Church Street

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 341-7850

pete_peltier@mied.uscourts.gov

2:09-cv-10042-MOB-MJH Doc # 41 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 218