Wilson v. Tilton et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 69 Motion for Appointment of Impartial Experts signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/12. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DAVID WILSON,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:07-cv-1192 GEB DAD (PC)

vs.
JAMES TILTON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claim, raised

18

in his fourth amended complaint, that defendants Hubbard, McGahey, Benton, Brida, and

19

Grannis violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate

20

indifference to his mental health needs by forcing him to live in a double cell. See Order filed

21

October 6, 2009 (Doc. No. 23).1

22
23

On April 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of an impartial
psychiatric expert to evaluate the adequacy of mental health care being provided to him in by the

24
25
26

1

Plaintiff’s claims against one other defendant served in this action, defendant Swan,
have been dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative
remedies prior to filing suit.
1

1

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In that motion, plaintiff

2

contends that he is receiving mental health care at the clinical correctional case management

3

system (CCCMS) level of care and is seen for mental health care only once every ninety days,

4

which he contends is inadequate. However, the Eighth Amendment claims on which this action

5

is proceeding arise from events which allegedly occurred in 2007 when plaintiff was part of the

6

Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP).2 Accordingly, the issue presented by this motion which

7

focuses on the treatment received by plaintiff during a later period of time through the CCCMS

8

are beyond the scope of the claims raised by plaintiff in his fourth amended complaint. For that

9

reason, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

10

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April

11

18, 2011 motion for appointment of impartial experts (Doc. No. 69) is denied.

12

DATED: January 6, 2012.

13
14
15
16

DAD:12
wils1192.o

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

In separate findings and recommendations being issued simultaneously with this order
the court has recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants on
plaintiff’s claims arising from his care in 2007 through the EOP.
2