Culp v. Alexandre et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 61 Motion to Appoint Expert Witness. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 6/13/2018. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

d

SECTION P

MARVELL ANTONIO CULP,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-01267

VERSUS

JUDGE WALTER

JOEL ALEXANDRE,
Defendants

ET

AL.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Appoint Expert Witness filed by Plaintiff,
Marvell Antonio Culp (“Culp”). (Doc. 61). Without citing a particular statute, Culp
claims he has attempted, unsuccessfully, to retain an expert witness, and that the
Court would benefit from the testimony of an appointed expert.
Culp is proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Culp’s pauper
status, however, does not warrant the appointment of an expert. It is well settled
that “the district court has no authority to appoint an expert witness under section
1915.” Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995).
Culp’s contention that an expert may assist the Court invokes Federal Rule of
Evidence 706. Under Rule 706, a court may appoint an expert witness to testify on
designated matters in a lawsuit. But Rule 706 “contemplates the appointment of an
expert to aid the court,” not the plaintiff. See Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597,
600 (5th Cir. 2008).

Further, district courts may be capable of reviewing and

evaluating medical evidence and testimony without the assistance of an appointed
expert. See Hulsey v. Thaler, 421 Fed.Appx. 386, 389 (5th Cir. 2011).

Culp argues, in very general terms, that an expert witness will aid the Court
in understanding medical issues, the standard of care, and a possible breach of that
standard, particularly for purposes of summary judgment. On the record before the
Court, however, no expert witness is necessary. In this case, the Court is capable of
evaluating the relevant medical evidence, the standard of care, and whether there
was a breach of that standard. Any other testimony offered by an appointed expert
would assist Culp, and not the Court.

Appointment of an expert is therefore

unwarranted.
Accordingly, Culp’s Motion to Appoint Expert Witness (Doc. 61) is hereby
DENIED.
13th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____ day of June,
2018.

__________________________________________
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2