Peoples v. Machuca

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TIMOTHY PEOPLES, Case No. 19-cv-05468-RMI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 154, 155 10 RAUL MACHUCA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro se civil rights complaint 14 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds was 15 denied and Defendants later stated that they did not believe the case could be resolved by a 16 summary judgment motion. (dkts. 86, 90). Counsel was appointed for Plaintiff and the case was 17 proceeding towards trial. Counsel for Plaintiff withdrew, and Plaintiff again continues pro se. Due 18 to the parties continuing with discovery and new discovery obtained, Defendants were provided 19 the opportunity to file a dispositive motion on the merits by January 29, 2025. Presently pending 20 are Plaintiff’s motions for a ruling and to appoint an expert witness. (dkts. 154, 155). 21 Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint an expert witness regarding Defendants’ use of 22 excessive force, denial of medical care, and retaliation. He provides little support regarding why 23 an expert witness is required for this case. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 authorizes the 24 appointment of a neutral expert witness, with expenses shared by the parties. The appointment of 25 an independent expert witness pursuant to Rule 706 is within the Court’s discretion, Walker v. 26 American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999), and may 27 be appropriate when “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of- 1 59 (7th Cir. 1997). However, the statute authorizing Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status does not 2 authorize the expenditure of public funds for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. 3 Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent 4 || litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress). The federal courts have uniformly held that 5 an indigent prisoner litigant must bear his own costs of litigation, including witnesses. /d. at 211 6 (in forma pauperis statute does not authorize waiver of fees for an indigent plaintiffs witnesses). 7 To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to have the Court appoint an expert witness to aid his 8 case, that request is denied pursuant to the authority cited above because he is proceeding in forma 9 || pauperis. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking a neutral expert, the Court does not find that the issues 10 || in this case are so complicated such that the testimony of a neutral expert is warranted under Rule 11 706. The allegations of retaliation, excessive force, and deliberate indifference to serious medical 12 || needs nor the legal issues involved are overly complex. 5 13 For the foregoing reasons: 14 The motion to appoint an expert witness (dkt. 155) is denied without prejudice and the 3 15 || Court will consider the request if this case continues to trial. The motion for a ruling (dkt. 154) is a 16 || denied as meritless because Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was already denied by the Court 17 |} Cake 153). IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: February 10, 2025 20 Ml Z 21 RQBERT M. ILLMAN 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28