Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-26" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 6/26/2017. This cause is before the Court for case management and consideration of Plaintiff's motions. [ 129 , 130 ]. Plaintiff is a federal inmate who has four claims alleging failure to protect, retaliation, conspiracy and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff has now filed a motion asking the Court to appoint an expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint a psychiatrist who could assist the jury in determining the normal behavior of a male who has been sexually assaulted. Plaintiff also states he needs a witness to rebut doctors the Defendants may call but doesn't say what he believes the doctors may say or if they have even been tendered as expert witnesses. The defense theory is that the sexual assault did not occur. If the doctors are only called to testify that plaintiff made no complaints of sexual assault, or that an examination revealed no sexual assault then an expert for the defense would not be required for the purpose the plaintiff requests. Generally, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier-of-fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue, a court will utilize expert witnesses." Ledford v. Sullivan,105 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997). Therefore, a court may appoint an expert witness when a plaintiff is indigent and an expert is needed by the trier of fact to understand a complex, technical or esoteric subject. However, expert medical testimony is not necessarily required in every case involving deliberate indifference to a medical condition and the Plaintiff has made no showing that such testimony is needed in this case. See Ledford, 105 F.3d 359-60 (expert witness not required when "the symptoms [the plaintiff] experienced were not beyond a lay persons grasp.") In addition, "the Court is not obligated to subsidize the plaintiff's litigation by paying for him to present expert witness testimony, even though he is proceeding in forma pauperis." Whaley v. Erickson, 2006 WL 3692633 at 3 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2006). Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion is denied. 129 . Defendants must file a response to Plaintiff's motion to add Defendants within 14 days.(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168 hasJudgeReference SJ001502 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de163 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de168 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de164 @default.