Carpenter v. Sullivan, et al.
Filing
226
ORDER Denying Motion Plaintiff's Request For Address And Location Of Expert Witnessess (ECF No. 222 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/7/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIE LEE CARPENTER,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00114- SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR ADDRESS AND LOCATION OF EXPERT
WITNESSES
[ECF No. 222]
Plaintiff Willie Lee Carpenter is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This case is currently set for jury trial on March 18, 2014. Now pending before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion for the address and location of expert witnesses. Plaintiff’s request must be denied.
Plaintiff requests the Court provide him with a list of the Court’s expert witnesses concerning
22
issues of the psychological effects of chemical agents, mental health care and medical
23
prognosis/neurology, prison security procedures, police/correctional officer procedure regarding use of
24
force, prison technical experts, and special masters.
25
26
27
28
As an initial matter, Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not have nor does it provide parties
with a list of potential expert witnesses in certain fields.
Plaintiff is further advised that the Court has discretion to appoint an expert pursuant to Rule
706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In relevant part, Rule 706 states that “[o] a party’s motion or
1
1
on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be
2
appointed.…” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan,
3
180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 702, “a witness who is qualified as an expert
4
by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or
5
otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of
6
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue….” Fed. R. Evid. 702.
7
First, as Plaintiff was previously advised in the Court’s trial scheduling order, it is his
8
responsibility to produce all of the evidence to prove his case, whether that evidence is in the form of
9
exhibits or witness testimony. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is
10
proper only when authorized by Congress, see Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989), and the
11
in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by
12
Plaintiff in the instant request.
13
Second, Plaintiff has failed to adequately describe the topics on which the expert would opine
14
or explain why this evidence is needed to support his claims of excessive force and failure to protect.
15
The issues of whether Plaintiff was subjected to excessive force and the failure to protect from such
16
excessive force are not complex. Accordingly, there is no basis for this Court to appoint an expert
17
witness.
18
Based on the foregoing,
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a list of appointed expert witnesses
20
appointment is DENIED.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
Dated:
February 7, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
ah0l4d
27
28
2
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?