Burns v. East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Emergency Medical Services et al

Filing 77

RULING denying 74 Motion for Appointment of Court Appointed Expert Witness. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 3/17/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STEVEN PAUL BURNS (#428006)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH PRISON
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, ET AL

NUMBER 14-245-JWD-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF EXPERT WITNESS
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Court Appointed Expert Witness.

Record document number 74.

Plaintiff is before the court seeking appointment of an
expert witness to testify about his dental care.
Insofar as the plaintiff sought expert testimony for the
purpose of supporting his allegations against defendant Dr. Vincent
Leggio, such expert testimony is not needed.

Plaintiff is not

making a state law medical negligence claim against Dr. Leggio, and
for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report issued this
date, the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Leggio
should be dismissed.1
Furthermore, while the court has the authority under Rule 706,
Fed.R.Evid., to appoint an expert witness, the 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, 600 (5th Cir. 2008).

1

Record document number 76.

See

Also, funds to pay an expert appointed under Rule 706 must
come from the parties.

Rule 706(c)(2).

It is apparent that the

plaintiff does not have funds to pay an expert appointed by the
court.

In the current circumstances, appointing an expert at the

sole cost of the defendants, particularly Dr. Leggio, is not
warranted.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Court
Appointed Expert Witness is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 17, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE