Opinion
1:20-cv-02346
08-02-2021
GARY W. TIPTON, Plaintiff, v. CORE CIVIC OF AMERICA, et al. Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 26]
JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Ohio inmate Plaintiff Gary Tipton brings a civil rights complaint against the warden of Lake Erie Correctional Institute and other facility staff. Plaintiff contends that the medical treatment he received following June and July 2020 suicide attempts violated his constitutional rights.
Doc. 1; Doc. 10; Doc. 21.
See Doc. 21.
Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint a medical expert witness to assist him with his case. Plaintiff argues that he needs the assistance of a medical expert to “properly present the medical facts in this case.”
Doc. 26.
Plaintiff cites the Supreme Court's decision in McWilliams v. Dunn to support his argument that the Court should appoint or provide Plaintiff access to a medical expert.But McWilliams and Ake address a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a psychiatrist's expertise. That is not Plaintiff's situation. Tipton is the pro se Plaintiff in this civil action against Defendants.
Id. at 2 (citing McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S.Ct. 1790, 1798 (2017)). In McWilliams, the Supreme Court held that its previous ruling in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) meant that Alabama had to provide the McWilliams Defendant with “access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” McWilliams, 137 S.Ct. at 1798 (citing Ake, 470 U.S. at 83).
Plaintiff also cites the Ohio Supreme Court for the standard for when “an indigent criminal defendant [must] be provided funds to obtain expert assistance at state expense.” Doc. 33 at 1 (citing State v. Mason, 694 N.E.2d 932, 939 (Ohio 1998)). This statement of law does not apply to Defendant's situation. He is a civil plaintiff, not a criminal defendant in the current case.
In civil cases, Courts cannot appoint medical experts for plaintiffs. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 706 permits a court to designate an expert witness to assist the court, not a party to a case. “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.“
Jones v. Ahmed, No. 1:14-cv-964, 2018 WL 8495820, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2018); Goetz v. Thompson, No. 3:15-CV-50-GFVT, 2016 WL 347021, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2016); see also Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995); Carranza v. Fraas, 471 F.Supp.2d 8, 9-10 (D.D.C. 2007).
Patton v. Loadhold; 445 F.Supp.3d 802, 803 (E.D. Cal. 2020).
Further, “[t]he in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize federal courts to appoint or authorize payment for expert witnesses for prisoners or other indigent litigants.”
Id. (citing Stakey v. Stander, No. 1:09-CV-00094-BLW, 2011 WL 887563, at *3 n.1 (D. Idaho Mar. 10, 2011)).
For the foregoing reasons, DENIES Plaintiff's motion to appoint an expert.
IT IS SO ORDERED.