Ingrassia v. Schafer et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for appointment of a medical expert witness is DENIED. (Doc. No. 72.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/3/2013. (KSH)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS J. INGRASSIA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. KEITH SCHAFER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:11CV02062 AGF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an expert medical witness. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action for damages resulting from injuries allegedly caused by Defendants while he was incarcerated. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 706, and stating that he does not have the financial means to pay for an expert witness, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint a medical expert to testify on his behalf. Rule 706 provides for the appointment of an expert witness with the costs of such appointment shared by the parties at the Court’s discretion. Fed. R. Evid. 706(c)(2). Courts in this circuit addressing the payment of expert fees by the judiciary have uniformly held that the Court is not authorized to pay such fees. See, e.g., Vogel v. Turner, No. 11-0446 (PJS/JJG), 2013 WL 358874, at *10 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2013); Reyna v. Weber, No. 11-4044, 2012 WL 2999768, at *2 (D.S.D. June 29, 2012); Holloway v. Lott, No. 4:08-cv-00821-GTE, 2009 WL 2778665, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 28, 2009). The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which provides the framework for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis, does not provide for court authorization and payment of expert witnesses. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a medical expert witness is DENIED. (Doc. No. 72.) AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 3rd day of June, 2013. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?