Opinion
Case No. 2:11-cv-1538-JCM-NJK
06-10-2014
ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY, Plaintiff(s), v. JOHN V. ROOS, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PREPAYMENT OF FEES
(Docket No. 255)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for prepayment of various fees. Docket No. 255. Defendants filed a response in opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 258, 262. Plaintiff's motion seeks prepayment of fees associated with, inter alia, hiring an investigator, witness fees for a forensic psychiatrist, and taking depositions. See, e.g., Docket No. 255 at 2. Absent express congressional authorization, the Court cannot spend public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). Plaintiff cites primarily to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in support of this request, but that statute does not authorize the prepayment of such fees. See, e.g., Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that section 1915 does not permit the wavier of witness fees). In short, Plaintiff has failed to present authority showing that the Court is authorized to grant the relief he seeks in his pending motion.
Plaintiff also cites Federal Rule of Evidence 706, but that rule applies only to neutral experts and not experts to advocate on a party's behalf. See Antonetti v. Skolnik, 2013 WL 593407, *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2013) (denying request for appointment of an expert).
In light of the above, the motion for prepayment of fees is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge