Robinson v. State of LA et al

Filing 280

ORDER denying 278 Motion for Appointment of Independent Counsel and 275 Motion for Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 3/13/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ARTHUR RAY ROBINSON (#425796)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL.

NO. 05-1016-JJB-RLB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Court-Appointed
Expert Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 275) and Motion for Appointment of Independent Counsel
(Rec. Doc. 278). These Motions shall be denied. The Court has previously determined
that the appointment of an expert in this case is not warranted under either Rule 706 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 28 U.S.C. § 1915, see Rec. Doc. 42, relying on
Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196-97 (5th Cir. 1995). See also Hulsey v. Thaler, 421
Fed. Appx. 386, 389 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1923 (2012) (noting that
“[t]he purpose of Rule 706 is to allow ‘the appointment of an expert to aid the court,’ as
distinct from an expert appointed for the benefit of a party”); Hannah v. United States,
523 F.3d 597, 601 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court “should appoint an
expert to aid an indigent party only in ‘compelling circumstances’”). In addition, on
several prior occasions, the Court has ruled that the appointment of counsel in this case is
not warranted. See, e.g., Rec. Docs. 40, 108, 121 and 245. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Court-Appointed Expert

Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 275) and Motion for Appointment of Independent Counsel (Rec.
Doc. 278) be and they are hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 13, 2014.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE