Loadholt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2:19-cv-0451 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a court- appointed expert witness (a urologist). (ECF No. 41.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied. Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes the court to appoint an independent expert. Such an appointment is within the discretion of the trial judge and may be appropriate when “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue.” See Torbert v. Gore, 2016 WL 3460262, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2016) (citation omitted); see also Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A Rule 706 expert typically acts…