Gorrell v. Sneath et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of the Court's Order 69 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/19/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON GORRELL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

THOMAS SNEATH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0554 - JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER
(Doc. 69)

16
17

On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff Wilson Gorrell (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking clarification of

18

the Court’s order denying appointment of an expert. (Doc. 69). Plaintiff seeks information regarding

19

the use of experts, and whether there is “some other way to satisfy the requirements for an expert

20

witness without requiring their appearance in Court.” Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the

21

Court “explain how he can call upon Dr. Price and/or Dr. Graham, and . . . accomplish the goal of

22

permitting their opinions and assistance to be heard and included.” Id.

23

Importantly, however, the Supreme Court has made clear that “judges have no obligation to act

24

as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). A litigant “does

25

not have a constitutional right to receive personal instruction from the trial judge.” Id. In addition, the

26

the Constitution “require judges to take over chores for a pro se [litigant] that would normally be

27

attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Martinez

28

v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 162 (2000).
1

1

While the Court recognizes the challenges Plaintiff faces as a pro se litigant, offering the

2

specific information requested by would undermine the judge’s role as an impartial decision-maker.

3

See Plier, 542 U.S. at 231. Accordingly, Plaintiff is referred to the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-705

4

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, which govern the use of experts and the submission of

5

their testimony for the Court’s consideration. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is DENIED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2