Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 20

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Appointment of Counse and for Appointment of Medical Expert re (19-2), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/11/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

16

C. McCABE, et al.,
17

Defendants.

18
19
20

1:13cv01779 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF
MEDICAL EXPERT
(Document 19-2)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action.1 Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2013.

21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On October 29, 2014, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations that this action go forward on certain claims, and that the remaining claims

23

and Defendants be dismissed.
24
25
26
1

27
28

Pursuant to Court order dated June 9, 2010, Plaintiff was deemed to be a prisoner with three strikes or more and
therefore unable to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, on December 19, 2013, the Court
determined that Plaintiff met the imminent danger exception for purposes of 1915(g).
1

1
2
3

On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and for the
appointment of a medical expert.2
A.

4

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

5

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353
6
7
8
9

(9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d
at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this

10

determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

11

Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15
16
17

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

18

Plaintiff also states that he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and clinical

19

depression. However, his medical diagnoses, alone, do not warrant appointment of counsel. A
20
21
22

review of Plaintiff’s pleadings reveals that he has been able to adequately present his claims, file
motions on his behalf and oppose motions filed by Defendants.
This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the

23
24

appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.

25
26
27
2

28

The filing also included a motion for reconsideration, which will be addressed by separate order. Plaintiff also
submitted the same requests in his other action pending before this Court, 1:12-cv-01343 AWI DLB PC.
2

1
2
3
4

B.

Motion for Appointment of Medical Expert
Plaintiff requests the appointment of a medical expert to opine on (1) his mental illness;

and (2) the issues in this action relating to his hunger strike and denial of Hepatitis C treatment.
“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to

5

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
6
7
8
9

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion
or otherwise,” Fed. R. Evid. 702, and the Court has the discretion to appoint an expert and to
apportion costs, including the apportionment of costs to one side, Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel.

10

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

11

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

12

However, at this stage in the proceedings, there are no pending matters in which the Court

13

requires special assistance, Ford ex rel. Ford, 291 F.3d at 1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071. The

14

Court’s docket is comprised of an overwhelming number of civil rights cases filed by prisoners

15

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

16
17
18

the legal issues involved no more complex than those found in the majority of the cases now
pending before the Court. Wilds v. Gines, No., 2011 WL 737616, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2011);
Honeycutt v. Snider, 2011 WL 6301429, at *1 (D. Nev. 2011).

19

Moreover, insofar as Plaintiff seeks an expert regarding his mental health issues, those
20
21
22
23

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.

24

Manriquez v. Huchins, 2012 WL 5880431, at *12 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (quotation marks and

25

citations omitted). He requests that the Court appoint counsel, and then counsel can obtain an

26

expert. However, the Court is not appointing counsel at this time. Even if the Court appointed

27

counsel, it could not compel counsel to obtain an expert witness.

28
3

1
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for the appointment
of an expert witness are DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
6

/s/ Dennis

November 11, 2014

L. Beck

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
4