Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff Robert Curtis Williams, III’s request for appointment of an impartial expert witness to testify about his mental health diagnosis. The court held that the request was untimely and that Plaintiff had not shown that a neutral expert was necessary or significantly useful to the trier of fact under Federal Rule of Evidence 706.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should appoint an impartial expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to testify about plaintiff's mental-health diagnosis.
- Whether the request should be denied as untimely and because plaintiff failed to show that a neutral expert was necessary or significantly useful to the trier of fact.
Holdings
- A court should not appoint an expert under Rule 706 where the expert is not necessary or significantly useful for the trier of fact to understand a material issue, where the appointment would serve as an advocate for a party, or where the request is an attempt to use public funds to avoid the in forma pauperis statute's restrictions on witness expenses. Plaintiff failed to establish that a neutral expert was required, so the request was denied.
Key quotations
“Expert witnesses should not be appointed where they are not necessary or significantly useful for the trier of fact to comprehend a material issue in a case.” (at 1)
“[E]pert witnesses should not be appointed to serve as an advocate for a party.” (at 1)
“Rule 706 is not a means to avoid the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and its prohibition against using public funds to pay the expenses of witnesses in a § 1983 prisoner rights action.” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sought appointment of an impartial expert witness to testify at trial concerning his mental-health diagnosis. He made the request in an untimely pretrial statement and renewed it on the morning of jury trial. He did not explain how his failure-to-protect and equal-protection claims were factually or legally complex or why a neutral expert was needed to assist the trier of fact.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed this in forma pauperis § 1983 action and sought appointment of a neutral expert witness in an untimely pretrial statement filed February 21, 2023, although the pretrial statement was due December 30, 2022. The district court denied the request as untimely and unjustified.