Vanderbusch v. Enenmoh

Full title: GARY VANDERBUSCH, Plaintiff, v. DR. ENENMOH, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 15, 2013

1:13-cv-01422-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2013)

Opinion

1:13-cv-01422-GSA-PC

2013-09-15

GARY VANDERBUSCH, Plaintiff, v. DR. ENENMOH, et al., Defendants.

Gary S. Austin

ORDER ADDRESSING REQUEST TO

PROCEED WITH EXCESS PAGES

(Doc. 4.)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS

AND INVESTIGATOR

(Doc. 6.)

I. BACKGROUND

Gary Vanderbusch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 5, 2013. (Doc. 1.)

On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed with an excess number of pages in the Complaint, and a request for a court-appointed expert witness and investigator. (Docs. 4, 6.)

II. LEAVE TO PROCEED WITH EXCESS PAGES IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed with an excess number of pages in the Complaint. Plaintiff argues that the complexity of his Complaint made it impossible to limit the number of pages to the court's preferred limits.

Plaintiff's Complaint contains 148 pages, including exhibits. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff Complaint awaits the court's required screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The number of pages in Plaintiff's Complaint shall be taken into consideration when the Complaint is screened, depending on the nature of the Complaint and other factors. The court will screen the Complaint and issue a screening order in due time.

III. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS AND INVESTIGATOR

Plaintiff requests the court to appoint an expert witness and an investigator, to assist Plaintiff with the litigation of this action. Plaintiff asserts that he is without funds to hire such assistance, and his case is complex and will require medical analysis.

Plaintiff is advised that the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress, see Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted), and the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by Plaintiff in the instant request. Moreover, the request for an expert witness is premature, as trial has not been scheduled in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff's request shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed with excess pages has been addressed by this order; and
2. Plaintiff's request for appointment of an investigator and expert witness is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE