Ornoski

(HC) (DP) Espinoza v. Ornoski

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 13, 20242:94-cv-01665California1,212 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTONIO ESPINOZA, No. 2:94-cv-1665-KJM-DB Petitioner, ORDER v. WARDEN, 1S Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner represented by counsel in the Office of the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Eastern District of California. In March of this year, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing an independent expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. MJ Order, ECF No. 331. The expert will assess whether petitioner is competent for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, which requires a district court to “appoint a guardian ad 22 litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 23 unrepresented” by a general guardian, committee, conservator or like fiduciary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). The Magistrate Judge determined that “both parties should bear the costs of the expert’s work,” petitioner because his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.