(PC) Newson v. Shaw ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAYMOND NEWSON, No. 2:18-cv-2010 CKD P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 STEPHEN SHAW, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to defendants’ motion 20 for summary judgment. Plaintiff has requested an additional ninety days due to the complexity 21 of the case as well as the limitations the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has placed on his ability to 22 access the law library. (ECF No. 50 at 2.) Plaintiff also states that he is scheduled to be paroled 23 on December 6, 2020. (Id. at 3.) He argues that the additional time will allow him to obtain 24 counsel and an expert once he is released from custody. (Id.) 25 On October 28, 2020, plaintiff also filed a request for a court-appointed medical expert. 26 The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized 27 by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does 28 not authorize the expenditure of public funds for experts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 50) is 3 | granted; and 4 2. Plaintiff is granted ninety days from the date of this order in which to file a response to 5 | defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 6 3. Plaintiff's request for a court-appointed medical expert (ECF No. 51) is denied. 7 | Dated: November 4, 2020 Pee a4 if / bas CAN fr fA. b“eU rg CAROLYN K. DELANEY 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 | iskty.news2010.36(2) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28