Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 91

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 87 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for Appointment of Medical Expert, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/11/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL EXPERT
(Document 87)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

The parties have been granted leave to obtain discovery limited to exhaustion.

22

Defendants must file their motion for summary judgment related to exhaustion by December 30,
23
24
25
26

2014.
On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and for the
appointment of a medical expert.

27
28
1

1

A.

2
3
4

Motion for Counsel
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353
(9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

5

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d
6
7
8
9

at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this
determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of
Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

10

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

11

Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970

12

(citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.

13

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

14

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

15

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

16
17
18

Plaintiff also states that he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and clinical
depression. However, his medical diagnoses, alone, do not warrant appointment of counsel. A
review of Plaintiff’s pleadings reveals that he has been able to adequately present his claims, file

19

motions on his behalf and oppose motions filed by Defendants.
20

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the

21
22
23

appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.
B.

Motion for Appointment of Medical Expert

24

Plaintiff requests the appointment of a medical expert to opine on (1) his mental illness;

25

and (2) the issues in this action relating to his hunger strike and denial of Hepatitis C treatment.

26
27

“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by

28
2

1

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

2

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

3
4

apportion costs, including the apportionment of costs to one side, Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel.
Ford v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002); Walker v.

5

American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999).
6
7
8
9

However, at this stage in the proceedings, there are no pending matters in which the Court
requires special assistance, Ford ex rel. Ford, 291 F.3d at 1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071. The
Court’s docket is comprised of an overwhelming number of civil rights cases filed by prisoners

10

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, and the facts of this case are no more extraordinary and

11

the legal issues involved no more complex than those found in the majority of the cases now

12

pending before the Court. Wilds v. Gines, No., 2011 WL 737616, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2011);

13

Honeycutt v. Snider, 2011 WL 6301429, at *1 (D. Nev. 2011).

14
15
16
17
18

Moreover, insofar as Plaintiff seeks an expert regarding his mental health issues, those
issues are not necessarily relevant to the claims before the Court.
Plaintiff also recognizes that Rule 706 is not a means to avoid the in forma pauperis
statute and its prohibition against using public funds to pay for the expenses of witnesses.
Manriquez v. Huchins, 2012 WL 5880431, at *12 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (quotation marks and

19

citations omitted). He requests that the Court appoint counsel, and then counsel can obtain an
20
21
22
23
24

expert. However, the Court is not appointing counsel at this time. Even if the Court appointed
counsel, it could not compel counsel to obtain an expert witness.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for the appointment
of an expert witness are DENIED.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

November 11, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3