Barnett v. Norman, et al.

Filing 380

ORDER Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 378 Motion for Reasoned Explanation for Determination to Deny Plaintiff Expert Witness pursuant to FRE 706(a)-(e), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/29/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

TROAS V. BARNETT,

v.
MARTIN GAMBOA, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Case No.: 1:05-cv-01022-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR REASONED EXPLANATION FOR
DETERMINATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF
EXPERT WITNESS PURSUANT TO F.R.E. 706
(a)-(e)
(ECF No. 378)

16

Plaintiff Troas Barnett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to magistrate judge

18

jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 9, 62.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Gamboa,

19

Duran, and Torres used excessive physical force against him in violation of his rights under the Eighth

20

Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that Defendant Torres failed to intervene to protect

21

Plaintiff from harm in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. A jury trial is set to

22

commence in this matter on February 23, 2016.

23

On December 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an “expressly articulated reasoned

24

explanation” for its denial of his motion for an appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 378.) The

25

motion is dated December 18, 2015. In the motion, Plaintiff discusses that the parties were heard on

26

December 17, 2015 regarding his request for the Court to appoint an expert witness, and the Court

27

expressed that it would likely deny that request. Plaintiff seeks an order setting forth the reasoning for

28

the Court’s ultimate finding on this issue.
1

Plaintiff’s request for an order explaining the Court’s denial of his motion to appoint an expert

1
2

witness is moot. The Court issued an order denying his motion for the appointment of an expert

3

witness and setting forth its explanation on December 18, 2015. The Clerk of the Court also served the

4

Court’s order via mail that same day. The order and Plaintiff’s current motion likely crossed in the

5

mail.

6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reasoned explanation for

7

determination to deny Plaintiff expert witness pursuant to F.R.E. 706(a)-(e) (ECF No. 378) is

8

DENIED as moot.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 29, 2015

12

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2