From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Leatherman

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 20, 2021
2:18-cv-0038 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)

Opinion

2:18-cv-0038 KJM CKD P

08-20-2021

PETER J. REED, Plaintiff, v. D. LEATHERMAN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On August 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a request for a court appointed medical expert. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for court appointed medical experts for litigants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for a court appointed medical expert (ECF No. 50) is denied.


Summaries of

Reed v. Leatherman

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 20, 2021
2:18-cv-0038 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Reed v. Leatherman

Case Details

Full title:PETER J. REED, Plaintiff, v. D. LEATHERMAN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 20, 2021

Citations

2:18-cv-0038 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)