Carroll v. Yates et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING Second 44 Motion for Appointment of Expert Witness as Premature, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/21/2012. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

ARVIE B. CARROLL,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00623-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS AS
PREMATURE

v.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

(Doc. 44)

Defendants.
/

13
14

Plaintiff Arvie B. Carroll, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

15

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 9, 2010. On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff

16

filed his second motion seeking the appointment of an ophthalmologist as an expert witness, should

17

this case go to trial. Fed. R. Evid. 706. Plaintiff’s first motion was denied as premature and his

18

second motion shall be denied on the same ground.

19

“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to

20

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by

21

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or

22

otherwise,” Fed. R. Evid. 702, and the Court has the discretion to appoint an expert and to apportion

23

costs, including the apportionment of costs to one side, Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel. Ford v. Long

24

Beach Unified School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002); Walker v. American Home Shield

25

Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). However, at this early stage in the

26

proceedings, there are no pending matters in which the Court requires special assistance, Ford ex rel.

27

Ford, 291 F.3d at 1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071, and Plaintiff’s pro se, in forma pauperis status

28

alone is not grounds for the appointment of an expert witness to assist Plaintiff with his case.
1

1

At this stage in the proceedings, motions relating to trial issues are premature. Once this

2

matter is set for trial, Plaintiff may renew his motion.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the

3

appointment of an expert witness is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice, as premature.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
ie14hj

May 21, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

This matter will not be set for trial until after resolution of any pending dispositive motions. The
dispositive motion deadline is December 13, 2012.

2