Bowell v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2011 DENYING pltf's 35 motion for a court-appointed investigator. (Yin, K)

(PC) Bowell v. California Department of Corrections et al

Doc. 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On March 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a court-appointed investigator. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ///// ///// ///// ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES E. BOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER No. 2:10-cv-0397 JAM DAD (PC)

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
12 bowe0397.31c

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 3, 2011 motion for a court-appointed investigator is denied. DATED: March 9, 2011.

2