Stevens v. Foster et al

Filing 26

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 10/22/2015, denying 21 motion to reconsider appointment of counsel. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

THEODORE STEVENS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHERYL FOSTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:14-CV-0368-MMD (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
October 22, 2015

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to reconsider appointment of counsel (#21). In his
motion, plaintiff contends that he needs an expert in the “field of vampire publishing,” a private
investigator to find defendant L. Ward, and an expert attorney. Defendants filed an opposition (#24),
and plaintiff replied (#25). Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider appointment of counsel (#21) is
DENIED for the reasons set forth in the court’s order #19.
Moreover, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status only adjusts the amount of filing fee that the
plaintiff must prepay. See Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that “the in forma pauperis statute[] does not waive payment of fees or expenses for
witnesses). This court declines to exercise its discretion under Rule 706(b) to appoint an expert
witness and apportion related costs to one side. McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1510-11 (9th
Cir. 1991), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Helling v. McKinney, 503 U.S. 903 (1991).
The purpose of appointing such an expert is to assist the trier of fact, not to select an advocate to
plaintiff. Students of California School for the Blind v. Honig, 736 F.2d 538, 549 (9th Cir. 1984),
vacated on other grounds, 471 U.S. 148 (1985). Finally, “[t]he plain language of section 1915 does
not provide for the appointment of expert witnesses to aid an indigent litigant.” Pedraza v. Jones,
71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995).

Finally, plaintiff may seek to ascertain the identity of defendant L. Ward through the regular
discovery process which can include interrogatories, requests for admission, and/or requests for
production of documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk