Brown v. Penner et al

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/25/10 denying 94 Motion for an expert witness. (Dillon, M)

(PC) Brown v. Penner et al

Doc. 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. M. PENNER, Defendant. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of an expert witness. Therein, plaintiff argues that an expert witness is needed for the purpose of educating the court when x-rays, pain medication, or surgical repairs are required to treat an injury. (Mot. at 6.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, the court may, in its discretion, appoint an expert witness. See Students of Cal. Sch. For the Blind v. Honig, 736 F.2d 538, 549 (9th Cir. 1984), vacated on other grounds, 471 U.S. 148 (1985). The court, however, should only appoint an expert witness when there are "compelling circumstances." United States Marshals Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1059 (8th Cir. 1984). At this juncture, the court finds that there are no ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAURICE BROWN, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1086 MCE DAD P

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

"compelling circumstances" requiring such an appointment. The court is confident in its ability to understand the medical issues presented by this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's August 12, 2010 motion requesting the appointment of an expert witness (Doc. No. 94) is denied. DATED: August 25, 2010.

DAD:sj brow1086.mot.expert

2