Hedrick et al v. Grant
Filing
157
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/8/15 DENYING 154 Request to Authorize the Expenditure to Hire an Expert. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE
ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY,
MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY
TYRONE PARKER, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
11
14
15
16
17
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR PRE-APPROVAL OF
EXPERT EXPENDITURES
v.
12
13
No. 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB
JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of
Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED
J. ASBY, as Yuba County
Jailer; and JAMES PHARRIS,
ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ,
HAROLD J. “SAM” SPERBECK,
JAMES MARTIN, as members of
the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS,
Defendants.
18
19
20
Plaintiffs request the Court “authorize the expenditure
21
in an amount not to exceed [$5,000.00]” to hire an expert(s) “to
22
determine if the Yuba County Jail’s medical and mental health
23
care,
24
required by the Constitution and the Consent Decree.” (Pls.’ Req.
25
for Authority to Incur Costs 1, ECF No. 154.) Plaintiffs contend
26
the
27
prosecution of this action.” (Id.)
facilities,
requested
and
procedures
expenditure
“is
28
1
meet
the
reasonably
minimum
necessary
standards
to
the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Carter White, filed a Declaration
in support of this request, in which he avers:
As counsel for the Plaintiff Class, I have a
duty to investigate current and ongoing
violations of Federal law and the Consent
Decree at Yuba County Jail (“the Jail”). See
18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3); ECF 120-1, at 48-49.
Based
on
the
Clinic’s
preliminary
investigation into conditions at the Jail,
review of reports produced by the County, and
declarations made by inmates, it is my belief
that there likely exist current and ongoing
violations of inmates’ federal rights at the
Jail. In order to determine if the conditions
of the Jail are in compliance with the
Consent Decree and constitutional minima,
Plaintiffs reasonably and necessarily need to
hire neutral and unbiased experts familiar
with
jail
conditions
and
constitutional
standards. Some of the issues the experts
will
need
to
look
into
include
the
accessibility of adequate medical and mental
health care, the habitability of the Jail
facilities, and the adequacy of exercise and
recreation
for
inmates.
I
have
made
reasonable inquiry and believe that the
initial cost of this course of action will
not exceed the amount of $5,000. I will do
all that I can to ensure that the expert
costs are minimal and reasonable.
18
(Decl. of Carter White in Supp. of Req. to Incur Costs (“White
19
Decl.”) & 2 (emphasis added).)
20
United States District Court for the Eastern District
21
of California (“Eastern District”) General Order No. 510 governs
22
the “reimbursement of pro bono counsel appointed in indigent pro
23
se civil cases.” It provides, in relevant part, that “appointed
24
pro bono counsel . . . may petition the Court for reimbursement
25
from the Court’s Non Appropriated Fund . . . of certain expenses
26
incurred.” See General Order No. 510, 1. Such expenses include:
27
28
Request[ed]
reimbursement
for
costs
of
retaining expert and non-expert witnesses
whose services are necessary in preparing
2
1
their client’s case. Except for good cause
shown, all such services require prior
approval of the judge before whom a case is
pending
before
they
may
be
purchased,
regardless of their cost.
2
3
4
General Order No. 510 ' 4(A)(3) (emphasis added).
5
The scope of Plaintiffs’ requested expert expenditure
6
is unclear and appears beyond what is governed by the Consent
7
Decree.
8
what
9
justification
for
10
authorization
to
11
Plaintiffs vaguely reference as “constitutional minima,” which
12
Plaintiffs indicate is outside the scope of the Consent Decree.
Specifically,
aspects
of
Plaintiffs
the
the
portion
conduct
an
shown
Decree
Consent
have
would
of
expert
the
neither
be
precisely
involved
expenditure
investigation
nor
seeking
into
what
13
Further, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that expert
14
investigation is necessary “to determine if the conditions of the
15
Jail are in compliance with the Consent Decree and constitutional
16
minima.” (White Decl. & 2.)
For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs have not shown the
17
18
requested
expenditure
is
“necessary”
19
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request is denied.
20
Dated:
January 8, 2015
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
to
prepare
their
case.
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?