Plaintiff being a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint sought the appointment of an expert witness in the field of psychiatry and mental health treatment and care and a neutral expert familiar with policies and procedures of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Plaintiff alleged that while he was housed at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), defendants A. Chandra, K. Mohr, J. Quiring, J. Charon, and J. Weiss: (a) retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment by, inter alia, verbally threatening plaintiff, and issuing a rules violation report (“RVR”) asserting false allegations in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a grievance against defendant A. Chandra; (b) violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by, inter alia, housing him in segregated housing and detention, resulting in a long term deprivation of outdoor exercise, despite Plaintiff’s chronic depressive disorder and serious medical and mental health needs; and (c) conspired to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Quiring and Weiss violated Plaintiff’s due process rights in connection with the hearing on the rules violation report asserting false allegations.
Discussion by the Court
Psychiatric and Mental Health Expert
In his first motion, Plaintiff sought the appointment of an expert witness in the field of psychiatry and mental health treatment and care.
Plaintiff argued that this case involved complex issues of fact, and an expert is required to assist the Court in evaluating Plaintiff’s medically diagnosed chronic depressive disorder and serious medical needs and determining whether subjecting him to C-Status segregated housing and detention and the lengthy deprivation of outdoor exercise “severely aggravated [Plaintiff’s] condition or caused him serious harm and injury.”
Prison Electronic Records Expert
Plaintiff sought the appointment of a neutral expert familiar with policies and procedures of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) regarding the maintenance and retention of prison records who can audit all existing records kept and maintained within the MCSP Electronic Records Management System (“ERMS”) computer relevant to RVR #006953258 and testify as to “the actual date said RVR was generated with information [inputted] by Defendant A. Chandra reporting the CDCR disciplinary charges against [Plaintiff].”
Analysis
First, to the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of an expert witness for his benefit, or to prove his case, the Court has no authority to grant such motion. Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the Court to appoint only neutral expert witnesses. An expert appointed pursuant to Rule 706 does not serve as an advocate for either party and each party retains the ability to call its own experts.
Second, Courts do not invoke Rule 706 simply to “appoint an expert on behalf of an indigent civil party.”
Third, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s motions for a neutral expert witness are premature. A neutral expert witness may be necessary where there is “some evidence, admissible or otherwise, that demonstrates a serious dispute that could be resolved or understood through expert testimony.” At the time Plaintiff filed his motions, the parties were still engaged in discovery, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses is pending. There are no pending motions on which the Court may require special assistance, such as to resolve a motion for summary judgment.
Finally, at least at this juncture, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical and mental health needs, retaliation and conspiracy are not so complex as to require an expert witness.
Held
The Court found that at this stage of the proceedings an expert witness is not necessary and would not be significantly useful to the factfinder to comprehend a material issue in this case.
Key Takeaway:
Plaintiff contended that a neutral medical expert is required to evaluate whether the long term deprivation of outdoor exercise severely aggravated Plaintiff’s medical or mental health needs, causing him injury. However, Plaintiff’s claims do not raise “probing, complex questions” or require consideration of complex scientific evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Garcia V. Chandra Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv1221 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | November 13, 2024 |
Leave a Reply