Robinson v. Louisiana

Full title: ARTHUR RAY ROBINSON (#425796) v. STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Mar 13, 2014

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1016-JJB-RLB (M.D. La. Mar. 13, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1016-JJB-RLB

03-13-2014

ARTHUR RAY ROBINSON (#425796) v. STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL.

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion for Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 275) and Motion for Appointment of Independent Counsel (Rec. Doc. 278). These Motions shall be denied. The Court has previously determined that the appointment of an expert in this case is not warranted under either Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 28 U.S.C. § 1915, see Rec. Doc. 42, relying on Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196-97 (5^th Cir. 1995). See also Hulsey v. Thaler, 421 Fed. Appx. 386, 389 (5^th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1923 (2012) (noting that "[t]he purpose of Rule 706 is to allow 'the appointment of an expert to aid the court,' as distinct from an expert appointed for the benefit of a party"); Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 601 n. 2 (5^th Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court "should appoint an expert to aid an indigent party only in 'compelling circumstances'"). In addition, on several prior occasions, the Court has ruled that the appointment of counsel in this case is not warranted. See, e.g., Rec. Docs. 40, 108, 121 and 245. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 275) and Motion for Appointment of Independent Counsel (Rec. Doc. 278) be and they are hereby DENIED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 13, 2014.

__________

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE