ARNOLD v. PRISON HEALTH SERIVES, 1:14-CV-0345. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150217e29
Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge. AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 70) for appointment of an expert witness, in which, based upon his in forma pauperis status, he "requests this Honorable Court to authorize the expenditure of funds not to exceed a sum certain. . . to enable [him] to obtain the services of a medical expert doctors [sic] opinion" to aid him in preparation of his case, 1 and it being well-settled that p
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge. AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 70) for appointment of an expert witness, in which, based upon his in forma pauperis status, he "requests this Honorable Court to authorize the expenditure of funds not to exceed a sum certain. . . to enable [him] to obtain the services of a medical expert doctors [sic] opinion" to aid him in preparation of his case, 1 and it being well-settled that pr..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 70) for appointment of an expert witness, in which, based upon his in forma pauperis status, he "requests this Honorable Court to authorize the expenditure of funds not to exceed a sum certain. . . to enable [him] to obtain the services of a medical expert doctors [sic] opinion" to aid him in preparation of his case,1 and it being well-settled that pro se inmate plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis have no entitlement to court-appointed medical expert witnesses as there is no statutory authority for payment of expert witness fees in civil suits for damages, Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir. 1987), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 70) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. In his supporting affidavit, plaintiff' indicates that he has been subjected to "medical negligence and cruel and unusual punishment." (Doc. 71, ¶ 4). In the governing amended complaint (Doc. 30), however, plaintiff only alleges that "[t]his is an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages and other relief arising out of the violation of plaintiffs [sic] constitutional rights during a course of confinement within the Pennsylvania Prison System." (Doc. 30, p. 1).
Source: Leagle
