Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv79-MTP.
September 15, 2008
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion for a List of Expert Witnesses [71]. The court, having considered the Motion [71], finds that it should be denied.
In his Motion [71], Plaintiff asks the court to provide him with a list of the names and addresses of experts on the subject of second-hand smoke. The court is aware of no such list kept by the Clerk's office. Further, the court does not find it necessary to appoint any experts in this matter at this time. Finally, although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Fifth Circuit precedent establishes that "`[t]he plain language of section 1915 does not provide for the appointment of expert witnesses to aid an indigent litigant.'" Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiff's Motion [71] is actually a letter to the Clerk requesting relief.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
That Plaintiff's Motion for a List of Expert Witnesses [71] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.