Jeremy Jones v. Chen et al

Filing 59

ORDER (1) DENYING 53 Motion for Relief, and (2) DENYING 54 Motion for Appointment of an Impartial Expert signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/11/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY JONES,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. CHEN

15

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS (PC)
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF (ECF No. 53), AND (2) DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN
IMPARTIAL EXPERT (ECF No. 54)

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

20

Defendant Chen on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim. (ECF

21

No. 22.)

22

On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed his pretrial statement. (ECF No. 56.) Along

23

with the statement, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Prayer for Relief” (ECF No. 53),

24

and a motion for the appointment of an impartial expert witness (ECF No. 54).

25

Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment for “actual damages in amount to be

26

proven at trial,” and $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. Plaintiff provides no legal basis

27

for granting him relief and, in any event, the deadline for filing any dispositive motions

28
1

1

has long passed. (ECF No. 28.) To the extent Plaintiff’s request seeks an award of

2

damages prior to trial, it will be denied. However, it appears the request may have been

3

intended as part of Plaintiff’s pretrial statement. The Court therefore will treat it as

4

Plaintiff’s statement of the relief he intends to seek at trial.

5

Plaintiff seeks an impartial expert to interpret his medical file and describe how his

6

medical condition has deteriorated. An expert witness may testify to help the trier of fact

7

understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule

8

706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the district court has discretion to appoint a

9

neutral expert on its own motion or on the motion of a party. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker

10

v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999). Rule

11

706 does not contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as

12

an advocate for Plaintiff. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL

13

2228427, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010) (citation omitted).

14

The appointment of an independent expert is to assist the trier of fact, not a

15

particular litigant. See Joe S.Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Court-Appointed Experts, at

16

538 (Fed. Jud. Center 1994) (Rule 706 is meant to promote accurate fact finding where

17

issues are complex, esoteric and beyond the ability of the fact finder to understand

18

without expert assistance). Here, Plaintiff requests an independent expert to establish an

19

element of his case. Rule 706 does not exist to assist a party.

20

Appointment of an independent expert under Rule 706 should be reserved for

21

exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice. In re Joint E.

22

& S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 830 F.Supp. 686, 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (allowing appointment

23

of independent expert in mass tort case). This case is not such an exceptional case.

24
25
26
27

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an
independent expert will be denied.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief (ECF No. 53) is DENIED, and

28
2

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an independent expert (ECF No.

1
2

54) is DENIED.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 11, 2015

/s/

6

Michael J. Seng

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
28
3