Williams v. Castro

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.

Holdings

1. 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.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should appoint an impartial expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to testify about plaintiff's mental-health diagnosis.
2. 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.

Disposition

other