Eastern District of California Denies Request to Appoint Court Expert in Eighth Amendment Case

Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a) provides that

On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act.

Rule 706(a) thus allows a court to appoint an expert witness. But Rule 706(a) rarely requires a court to appoint an expert witness. An example can be found in the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Wilkins v. Barber, 2021 WL 4992664 (E.D. Cal. 2021).

In Barber, the plaintiff, Keenan Wilkins, an inmate

suffers from schizophrenia, and myriad serious medical conditions that cause him extreme pain. Plaintiff contends that defendants have delayed and denied him adequate medical care resulting in the unnecessary wanton infliction of pain and inability to conduct basic necessities, such as exercise, sleep, etc., in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs….In his second claim, plaintiff alleges Dr. Barber retaliated against plaintiff because plaintiff sought redress via medical grievances and complaints by Dr. Barber telling plaintiff to “suffer,” and then discontinued plaintiff’s prescription orthopedic shoes, denied plaintiff an MRI and surgery, and denied plaintiff the Ultram prescription recommended by the specialist. In his third claim, plaintiff raises various state law claims for libel/defamation/slander, negligence and medical malpractice. Plaintiff seeks unspecified injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and money damages.

To support his claims, Wilkins asked the court to appoint an expert under Rule 706(a) to aid or assist the court. The court denied the request, concluding that

plaintiff fails to demonstrate that this action is so complex that it requires the appointment of a neutral expert witness to assist the trier of fact. He claims such expert would assist the court in comprehending material issues, and to promote a fair trial, and to aid the court in determining whether defendants’ treatment fell below the standard of care. But plaintiff does not explain how his deliberate indifference claims or medical malpractice claims are factually or legally complex. Whether or not defendants met the applicable standard of care applies to plaintiff’s medical claims raised under state law. To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claims, plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, which will turn on the nature of each defendant’s response to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, as supported (or not) by the evidence, in addition to whether each defendant’s treatment fell below the standard of care as to plaintiff’s medical claims raised under state law.

-CM