McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 236

ORDER DENYING 232 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Expert Witness, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/26/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
STRONACH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS
[ECF No. 232]

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness, filed on

19
20

Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

June 17, 2020.
Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a) permits a “district court to apportion all the cost [of an expert

21
22

witness] to one side” in an appropriate case, as when[] one of the parties in an action is indigent” and

23

“the expert would significantly help the court.” McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir.

24

1991), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991), judgment

25

reinstated, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’d, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

An expert witness may testify to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a

2

fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court has

3

discretion to appoint a neutral expert on its own motion or on the motion of a party. Fed. R. Evid.

4

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

5

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

6

advocate for Plaintiff. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL 2228427, at *1

7

(E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010). Indeed, appointment of an independent expert under “Rule 706 should be

8

reserved for exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice.” In re JoinT

9

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

10

independent expert in mass tort case). This case is not such an exceptional case.
First, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks appointment of an expert witness for his own benefit, the

11
12

court has no authority to grant him such relief. Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits

13

the court to appoint only neutral expert witnesses. Id. Moreover, “28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize

14

the court to appoint an expert for plaintiff’s benefit to be paid by the court.” Gorton, 793 F. Supp. 2d at

15

1184 n.11. Second, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that this action is so complex that it requires the

16

appointment of an expert witness to assist the trier of fact. Plaintiff does not explain how his deliberate

17

indifference claims are factually or legally complex. Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference to

18

serious medical need are not so complex that the court requires a neutral expert at the summary

19

judgment stage. See, e.g., Noble v. Adams, 2009 WL 3028242, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2009)

20

(denying plaintiff's request to appoint medical expert witness in section 1983 action because “the

21

issues are not so complex as to require the testimony of an expert”); Lopez v. Scribner, 2008 WL

22

551177, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008) (denying plaintiff's request to appoint medical expert witness

23

in § 1983 action because “the legal issues involved in this action are not particularly complex.”);

24

Hooker v. Adams, 2007 WL 4239570, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2007) (plaintiff's motion for the

25

appointment of an expert witness denied as “the legal issues involved in this action are not particularly

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

complex.”). Rather, this case involves a relatively straightforward Eighth Amendment claim that will

2

turn on the nature of each Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Accordingly,

3

Plaintiff’s motion for a neutral expert under Rule 706 is denied.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

June 26, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3