(PC) Newsome v. Loterzstain

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHELDON RAY NEWSOME, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN EXPERT WITNESS 14 M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al., ECF No. 160 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff moves for the appointment of expert witness to give an opinion on his damages and to 19 rebut defendants’ medical experts. ECF No. 160 at 1. Plaintiff cannot obtain appointment of an 20 expert witness for his own benefit. Rule 706(a) permits the court to appoint only neutral expert 21 witnesses. See Students of Cal. School for the Blind v. Honig, 736 F.2d 538, 549 (9th Cir. 1984). 22 Moreover, “28 U.S.C. § 1915 . . . does not authorize the court to appoint an expert for plaintiff’s 23 benefit to be paid by the court.” Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1171, 1184 n.11 (E.D. Cal. 24 2011). If the court were ever to appoint an expert witness, the expert would be appointed to assist 25 the trier of fact, and not to collect and interpret evidence or respond to defenses brought by 26 defendants. See Lopez v. Scribner, No. CVF045595 OWW-DLB P, 2007 WL 1215420, at *1 27 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2007) (“The function of an expert witness is to testify at trial to assist the trier 28 of fact in understanding the evidence.”). 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appoint of expert 2 || witnesses, ECF No. 160, is denied. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 5, 2024 Q——— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28