Todd v. CA Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al.

Filing 126

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request For Assistance Regarding Expert Witnesses (ECF No. 123 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/22/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL ANDRE TODD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY L. HEDGPETH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01504-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR ASSISTANCE REGARDING EXPERT
WITNESSES
[ECF No. 123]

Plaintiff Michael Andre Todd is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter/inquiry regarding the rules and procedures for

20

obtaining expert witness testimony at trial for a pro se litigant. The Court has informed Plaintiff

21

repeatedly in several orders, including the trial scheduling order issued January 27, 2014, and the

22

pretrial order and order denying Plaintiff’s request for the Court to obtain attendance of incarcerated

23

witnesses issued April 11, 2014, as to the procedure for obtaining and presenting expert witness

24

testimony at trial. The Court has provided Plaintiff with the applicable rules and procedure regarding

25

expert witness and no further information can be provided.

26

To the extent Plaintiff is also seeking assistance as the filing of a motion of limine, the Court

27

has provided Plaintiff with the applicable rule(s) and procedure(s) regarding the filing of a motion in

28

limine in the orders issued January 27, 2014, and April 11, 2104. Plaintiff is advised that a district
1

1

court cannot act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants. See, e.g., Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d

2

1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se

3

litigants.”); Gordon v. Barnett, No. C03-5524 KLS, 2007 WL 4358314, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7,

4

2007) (stating that if the pro se plaintiff had asked the court for legal advice, the court “could not have

5

done more than direct plaintiff to the applicable rules of civil procedure.”).

6
7

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for assistance regarding expert witnesses and
motions in limine is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 22, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2