(PC) Ramos v. Mayfield ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEOBARDO ERIC RAMOS, No. 1:21-cv-01036-ADA-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 MAYFIELD, (ECF Nos. 123, 125, 129) 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Leobardo Eric Ramos’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 18 reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 19 expert witnesses. (ECF No. 125.) For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion 20 for reconsideration. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 23 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 24 excessive force claim against Defendant Mayfield. (See ECF Nos. 12, 21, 109, 140.) This matter 25 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 26 Rule 302. 27 On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of expert witnesses pursuant 28 to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. (ECF No. 119.) On July 13, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge 1 denied Plaintiff’s motion because the “case d[id] not raise complex issues of supervisory liability 2 or prison culture.” (ECF No. 123 at 3.) On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for 3 reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order. (ECF No. 125.) Defendant Mayfield filed his 4 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on August 7, 2023. (ECF No. 129.) 5 II. Legal Standard 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows a party to serve and file objections to a 7 Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order within fourteen days after being served with a copy. Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for reconsideration, 9 meaning it should have been captioned “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of 10 Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” See Local Rule 303(c). 11 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order, “[t]he district judge in the case 12 must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly 13 erroneous or is contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303; Dalke v. Clark, 14 No. 1:20-cv-00534-AWI-SAB (PC), 2021 WL 3783912, at *1 (E.D. Cal. August 26, 2021). Under 15 the “clearly erroneous” standard of review, a district court may overturn a Magistrate Judge's ruling 16 “only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 17 Comput. Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks 18 v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). The “‘clearly erroneous’ 19 standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers 20 Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). 21 Under the “contrary to law” standard of review, a district court may conduct independent 22 review of purely legal determinations by a Magistrate Judge. Comput. Econ., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 23 at 983. An order is contrary to law when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, 24 or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. 25 Minn. 2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 26 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Surles v. Air France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 27 2001). 28 /// 1 III. Analysis 2 In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff alleges that his “chronical injury issue . . . should 3 keep [him] eligible for a medical expert concerning his condition diagnosis.” (ECF No. 125 at 1.) 4 Plaintiff also alleges that the Court should appoint a medical expert because he “indeed suffered a 5 medical diagnosis as a result of this excessive force allegation” and that a medical expert will be 6 able to provide insight to prove that his condition “was a result of the criminal negligence and 7 excessive force abuse” he suffered. (Id. at 2.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that “[a] special doctor 8 could explain all the benefiting information needed to win a settlement.” (Id.) 9 In opposition, Defendant argues that “Federal Rule of Evidence 706 does not permit the 10 appointment of an expert to be an advocate for the Plaintiff, and the damages issues in this case are 11 not complex.” (ECF No. 129 at 1.) 12 Upon review of the docket and the Parties’ filings, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge 13 properly considered the evidence submitted by Plaintiff along with the record in this case, and 14 correctly determined that Plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force are not so complex as to require 15 a neutral expert witness to assist the Court and/or a jury. See e.g., McNeal v. Lockie, No. 2:05-cv- 16 00441-GEB, 2015 WL 4077229 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2015) (denying reconsideration of the magistrate 17 judge’s denial of appointment of expert witness regarding the use of force and medical issues 18 because these issues are not so complex as to require an expert witness); Robinson v. Adams, No. 19 1:08–cv–01380–AWI–BAN PC, 2014 WL 6461342, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov.17, 2014) (denying 20 reconsideration of the magistrate judge's decision denying the plaintiff's request for the appointment 21 of an expert witness regarding use of force procedures because the magistrate judge correctly 22 determined that plaintiff's allegations of excessive force are not so complicated as to require an 23 expert witness). 24 Additionally, as Defendant correctly notes, Rule 706 does not contemplate court 25 appointment of an expert witness to advocate for Plaintiff at trial. The purpose of appointing a 26 neutral expert witness is to assist the trier of fact, not to serve as an advocate for a particular party. 27 Gorrell v. Sneath, 2013 WL 3357646, * 1 (E.D. Cal. Jul.3, 2013); see also Brooks v. Tate, No. 28 1:11-cv-01503 AWI, 2013 WL 4049043, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug.7, 2013) (holding that avoiding bias 1 | or otherwise assisting one party is not the purpose of Rule 706). Thus, the Magistrate Judge’s order 2 | denying Plaintiff appointment of expert witnesses was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 3 | IV. Conclusion 4 Accordingly, 5 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 125), is DENIED. 6 7 g | IT ISSO ORDERED. 9 Dated: _ September 18, 2023 10 UNITED f£TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28