Wilson v. Cambell et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Investigator 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/26/17. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CAMPBELL, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00534-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF INVESTIGATOR
Plaintiff, Christopher Wilson, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on claims of excessive force in violation of
the Eight Amendment against Correctional Officers T. Campbell and Michelle Miller.
On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointment of an investigator to
assist him. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff contends that, although he has forms approving his request to
correspond with material inmate witnesses at other facilities, his correspondence is returned
indicating that no approvals are on file. (Id.)
“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when
authorized by Congress. . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting
United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). There is no provision for the
appointment of an investigator to contact witnesses for Plaintiff. However, the Wardens and
Litigation Coordinators at Plaintiff’s facility (Kern Valley State Prison) and at the facilities where
his witnesses are housed (California State Prison in Lancaster, California Rehabilitation Center in
Norco, and Mule Creek State Prison in Ione) are requested to look into the matter and facilitate
Plaintiff’s correspondence with inmate witnesses.1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an investigator, filed
March 10, 2017, (Doc. 11), is DENIED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward a copy of this
order and Plaintiff’s motion to the Warden offices and to Litigation Coordinators at Kern Valley
State Prison, California State Prison in Lancaster, California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, and
Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, to facilitate Plaintiff’s correspondence with his inmate
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 26, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
How access is best facilitated in light of Plaintiff=s housing status and other custody or classification factors is
left to the sound discretion of prison officials.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?