QUILLING v. HUMPHRIES

Filing 129

ORDER: Plaintiff's 127 Motion for Expert Witnesses is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS on 2/5/2013. (jws)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARY C. QUILLING,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 4:10cv404-WS/CAS

DAVID W. CLARK, Inspector,
JOSE COLON, Captain,
and JEFFREY HASTY, Sergeant,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, has filed "Plaintiff's Motion for Expert Witnesses."
Doc. 127. Plaintiff seeks to call two expert witnesses if and when this case goes to trial.
Plaintiff's motion does not indicate that either of the two suggested expert witnesses will
testify voluntarily for Plaintiff, nor does Plaintiff indicate how he will pay for those
witnesses. Rather Plaintiff points to Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996) for
the proposition that the Court may appoint expert witnesses on his behalf under Rule
706.
In Steele v. Shah, the Eleventh Circuit "emphasize[d] that" the court was not
"offer[ing] any opinion on the propriety of appointing an expert witness" but, rather,

Page 2 of 3

"only direct[ing] that discretion on the matter be exercised and reflected in a reasoned
ruling." Steele, 87 F.3d at 1271. The case was remanded because the district court
had not provided any explanation for not granting an expert witness or appointment of
counsel. Id. at 1270-71.
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of two expert witnesses is denied because
under Rule 706(a), "the court may only appoint someone who consents to act" as an
expert witness. FED . R. EVID . 706(a). Plaintiff has not shown that the two proposed
experts have consented, or will consent, to testify in this case as Plaintiff's expert
witness.
Moreover, in another order entered this day, the parties have been provided an
opportunity to pursue summary judgment as permitted by FED . R. CIV. P. 56. This case
is not yet on the trial calendar and this motion is premature.
As for Plaintiff's motion requesting the appointment of counsel, included within
the motion for appointment of expert witnesses, doc. 127, that motion is also denied.
Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right, but a privilege that is
justified only by exceptional circumstances such as where the facts and legal issues are
so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner. Fowler v.
Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these legal
issues are either novel or complex. Moreover, Plaintiff has demonstrated a
sophistication1 in litigating this matter which demonstrates he is able to represent

1

Plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal, doc. 18, motion to alter or amend
judgment, doc. 32, motion to correct a court order, doc. 45, motion for default judgment,
doc. 80, and a motion for a hearing on the motion for default judgment, doc. 81, and
numerous motions to compel, docs. 111, 116, and 119.
Case No. 4:10cv404-WS/CAS

Page 3 of 3

himself. Thus, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, doc. 127, is denied without
prejudice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for expert witnesses and to appoint counsel, doc. 127, is
DENIED.
2. Plaintiff shall keep the Clerk's Office advised of his current address and shall
immediately file a notice of change of address should his mailing address change.
3. The Clerk of Court shall return this file upon the filing of summary judgment
motions, or no later than February 26, 2013.
DONE AND ORDERED on February 5, 2013.

S/ Charles A. Stampelos
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv404-WS/CAS