Quiroz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 57

ORDER disregarding 52 Motion for Settlement Conference; granting 54 Motion for Extension of time to submit Money Orders and denying 55 Motion for appointment of Medical Expert signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/10/2010. (Filing Deadline: 1/18/2011). (Lundstrom, T)

(PC) Quiroz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al

Doc. 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CARLOS QUIROZ, 9 10 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SUBMIT MONEY ORDERS (DOC. 54) JANUARY 18, 2011 DEADLINE 13 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Carlos Quiroz ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL EXPERT (DOC. 55) Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01426-OWW-DLB PC ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (DOC. 52)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 12 et al.,

17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding 19 on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Attygalla and Shen for violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. 21 Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference, filed

22 November 12, 2010; 2) Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to submit money orders for travel 23 expenses for unincarcerated witnesses, filed December 6, 2010; and 3) Plaintiff's motion for 24 appointment of medical expert, filed December 6, 2010. Docs. 52, 54, 55. Defendants filed their 25 responses to the motions on November 12, 2010 and December 8, 2010. Docs. 53, 56. 26 I. 27 Motion For Settlement Conference Plaintiff moves for a settlement conference in this matter. Defendants responded that

28 they would not settle for any monetary amount because Plaintiff would be unable to prove his 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 claims. As Defendants have indicated an unwillingness to settle, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 2 Plaintiff's motion for settlement conference, filed November 12, 2010, is DISREGARDED. 3 II. 4 Motion For Extension Of Time To Submit Money Orders Plaintiff requests up to and including January 18, 2011 to submit money orders required

5 for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses at trial. Plaintiff contends that he contacted family 6 members in Peru, who will send him the money by that time. 7 Defendants contend that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion. Defendants contend

8 that Plaintiff has not shown an ability to secure these funds. Defendants further contend that 9 requiring Defendant Shen, who currently resides in Taiwan, to travel to Fresno for trial would be 10 a miscarriage of justice in this instance. 11 Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive. Plaintiff's list of unincarcerated witnesses

12 includes three doctors, all of whom presumably reside in California. Defendant Shen is not one 13 of these witnesses. Thus, Defendants' argument is moot. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to submit money orders, filed

15 December 6, 2010, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted up to and including January 18, 2011 in 16 which to submit his money orders to the Court. 17 III. 18 Motion For Appointment Of Medical Expert Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint a medical expert in this action. Plaintiff's request

19 for expert witnesses concerning prison management is denied. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 20 allows the Court to appoint expert witnesses on its own motion or on motion by a party. Fed. R. 21 Evid. 706; Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 22 (9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, "[i]f scientific, technical, or other 23 specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a 24 fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or 25 education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." 26 The function of an expert witness is to assist the trier of fact in understanding the

27 evidence. The Court does not find that an expert witness would be necessary in this matter. 28 "The decision to appoint an expert under [Fed. R. Evid. 706(a)] rests solely in the Court's 2

1 discretion and is to be informed by such factors as the complexity of the matters to be determined 2 and the fact-finders need for a neutral, expert view." Mavity v. Fraas, 456 F. Supp. 2d 29, 34 n.4 3 (D.D.C. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The Court does not find this litigation 4 to be so particularly complex as to require appointment of an expert. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 5 motion for appointment of expert, filed December 6, 2010, is DENIED. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

December 10, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE