Christ v. Blackwell et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/30/12 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion in limine 65 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs motion for a court-appointed expert 67 is DENIED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JON CHRIST,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-0760 EFB P

R. BLACKWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. The case is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent. See 28

18

U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(1)-(2). Plaintiff has filed a motion

19

in limine and a motion for a court-appointed expert.
This matter is currently set for a settlement conference. If the parties do not reach a

20
21

settlement, the court will issue a pretrial order and schedule a trial. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion

22

in limine is denied without prejudice to renewal or re-filing in the event the court issues a pretrial

23

order and sets the case for trial.

24

////

25

////

26

////
1

1

Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint an expert medical witness for him because he

2

is indigent.1 He also asks that defendants pay for any related expert witness fees. Under Federal

3

Rule of Evidence 706, a district court “may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses

4

should not be appointed . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). Appointment of an expert under Rule 706

5

relieves the court and the jury from being “completely at the mercy of the parties’ warring

6

experts,” and thus, only allows for the appointment of a expert who is a “genuine neutral.” In re

7

High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 295 F.3d 651, 665 (7th Cir. 2002).

8
9

In this case, plaintiff does not seek a neutral expert. Rather, he requests appointment of
an expert witness for his benefit alone, which is not authorized by Rule 706. See Gorton v.

10

Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1177-78 (E.D. Cal. 2011). Additionally, the expenditure of public

11

funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v.

12

Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the

13

expenditure of public funds for witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Gorton, 793 F. Supp.

14

2d at 1184 n.11. And plaintiff cites to no authority that would require defendants to make such

15

an expenditure.

16

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

17

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Docket No. 65) is denied without prejudice.

18

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a court-appointed expert (Docket. No. 67) is denied.

19

DATED: July 30, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26

To the extent plaintiff wishes to include Dr. Jason Rohrer as one of his witnesses for
trial, the court will address that request in the event the court issues a pretrial order.
2