(PC) Smith v. CDCR ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH, No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983, has requested appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 64. 20 The statute authorizing plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not authorize the 21 expenditure of public funds for expert witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 22 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (expenditure of public funds on behalf of indigent 23 litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 24 (3d Cir. 1987) (no provision to pay fees for expert witnesses). The federal courts have uniformly 25 held that an indigent prisoner litigant must bear his own costs of litigation, including witnesses. 26 Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211 (in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize waiver 27 of fees or expenses for an indigent’s witnesses). To the extent the expenses of an expert retained 28 on behalf of a prisoner litigant may be recovered if preauthorized and arranged by counsel 1 | appointed by this court’s Pro Bono Panel, plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary 2 || circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. The court will therefore decline to appoint 3 || counsel for the purpose of obtaining an expert witness. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an 5 || expert witness (ECF No. 64) is denied. 6 || DATED: October 4, 2022 ~ 7 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28