Smith et al v. Woodford et al

Filing 123

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte Denying 114 Motion for Appointment of Expert. (jg COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2011)

1
2
3
4

*E-FILED - 7/29/11*

5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

FLOYD SMITH,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J.S. WOODFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 04-4793 RMW (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF
EXPERT
(Docket Nos. 114, 122)

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and currently confined at San Quentin State
17
Prison, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff moves, pursuant to
18
Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for appointment of an expert, and specifically, a
19
polygraph examiner.
20
Pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other
21
specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
22
fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
23
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under
24
Rule 706, the Court may on its own motion or on the motion of a party appoint an expert
25
witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a).
26
At this point in the proceedings, the Court finds it is premature to determine whether
27
appointment of an expert or polygraph examiner is warranted. Specifically, until the court has
28
Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Expert
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR old\CR.04\Smith793expert.wpd

1

had the opportunity to review the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties on summary

2

judgment, no determination can be made that the issues are so complex as to require an expert to

3

assist the trier of fact. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert will be

4

DENIED as premature. This denial is without prejudice to renewal, once defendants’ motion for

5

summary judgment has been considered.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 7/28/11
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Expert
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR old\CR.04\Smith793expert.wpd

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMITH et al,

Case Number: CV04-04793 RMW
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
WOODFORD et al,
Defendant.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 29, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Floyd Smith K-72700
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974
Dated: July 29, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk