Reid v. Kelly et al
ORDER denying 43 44 Motions to Appoint Expert without prejudice and granting 46 Motion for a Ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 04/22/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WENDY KELLY, et al.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint an Expert Witness, and for
Ruling on the Motions (Doc. Nos. 43, 44, 46). Defendants have responded in opposition to the
Motions (Doc. No. 48).
In support of the Motions, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint an expert witness, pursuant to
FED. R. EVID. 706, to verify the standard of care provided by the Defendants. He claims Defendants
failed to diagnose and treat his Gender Identity Disorder, and asks to be examined by an outside
psychiatrist to verify the proper standard of his care.
Defendants object, stating Plaintiff’s lawsuit is based on a disagreement over the type of
medical care he has received, which does not support a constitutional violation. In addition, they
state that Plaintiff probably could not bear the costs associated with an expert, and that the State
should not be required to pay for such.
According to FED. R. EVID. 706(a), the Court “may” appoint an expert; the expenses and fees
of witnesses called by the Court may be charged as costs. U.S. Marshals Service v. Means, 741 F.2d
1053, 1059 (8th Cir. 1984). However, this discretionary power “is to be exercised only under
compelling circumstances.” Id.
In this particular case, Plaintiff is complaining that the type of treatment provided by
Defendants constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff has not
indicated that he can afford to bear the cost of an expert appointment and at this juncture of the
proceedings (discovery phase), the Court does not find a compelling reason to appoint an expert at
someone else’s expense. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motions should be denied at this
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint an Expert Witness
(Doc. Nos. 43, 44) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Ruling (Doc. No. 46) is
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2014.
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?