KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are pending before the court.
This action is proceeding on the fifth amended complaint filed November 14, 2014. (ECF No. 171). Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to provide him with adequate mental health care for exhibitionism, voyeurism and paraphilia. (
In the fifth amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has not been treated for exhibitionism, voyeurism and paraphilia at any CDCR institution he has ever been incarcerated in (
The defendants in this action are Howlin, Belavich, Sirkin, Wynn, Silva and Spearman. Defendant Belavich is the Director of Mental Health for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). The other defendants are employed at the Correctional Training Facility ("CTF"), where plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed the fifth amended complaint.
On October 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he had been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). (ECF No. 235.) Defendant Muniz is the SVSP Warden. In the pending motion, plaintiff requests that defendant Muniz be added as a defendant.
All that is required in action for injunctive relief is to name an official who could appropriately respond to a court order on injunctive relief should one ever be issued.
However, because a suit against an official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state, a practice, policy or procedure of the state must be at issue in a claim for official capacity injunctive relief.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to add Warden Muniz as a defendant is denied as unnecessary without prejudice.
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint an expert witness to examine him in order to determine his need for treatment for exhibitionism and voyeurism pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706.
A court has full discretion to appoint an expert witness either by its own motion or by a party's motion. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a);
Where a party has filed a motion for appointment of a neutral expert under Rule 706, the court must provide a reasoned explanation of its ruling on the motion.
At this stage of the litigation, the undersigned does not believe that a neutral expert will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue, but the undersigned cannot conclusively determine whether appointment of an expert witness may be warranted at some point in this litigation. Based on the claims on which this action proceeds, the undersigned finds that consideration of whether appointment of an expert witness is warranted is more appropriate at the dispositive motion stage of this action. For this reason, plaintiff's motion for appointment of an expert witness is denied without prejudice to reconsideration at a later stage of this action.
On October 1, 2015, the undersigned granted plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 233.) The October 1, 2015 order set the discovery deadline to December 31, 2015. (
On December 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that defendants refused to respond to his request for production of documents. (ECF No. 246.) Attached to plaintiff's letter is a copy of a letter addressed to plaintiff from defense counsel dated November 23, 2015. (
In his December 3, 2015 letter to the court, plaintiff states that he thought he had until December 31, 2015 to serve his discovery requests. (
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to order defendants to respond to his untimely request for production of documents. Accordingly, plaintiff's request that defendants be ordered to respond to his untimely request for production of documents is denied.
The undersigned has previously denied a motion for appointment of counsel filed by plaintiff. (
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to "enjoin" defendant Muniz as a defendant (ECF No. 244) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 245) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's request that the court order defendants to respond to his request for production of documents (ECF No. 246) is denied; 4. Plaintiff's motion for appointment counsel (ECF No. 249) is denied.