Williams v. Ortega
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, moved for the appointment of a private investigator to assist in locating witnesses. The court denied the motion, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize the use of public funds to pay for expert services or investigators in civil cases.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint a private investigator denied“Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for a private investigator is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes the waiver of filing fees and costs but does not provide for the payment of expert fees or the appointment of private investigators. The cited authorities (Hadsell, Dixon, MacCollom, Tedder) consistently support the proposition that public funds cannot be used to subsidize civil litigation absent specific congressional authorization. The plaintiff's argument regarding the difficulty of litigating from prison does not create a statutory exception to this rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1915) and applies binding Ninth Circuit precedent to deny the request for a private investigator. The reasoning directly addresses the plaintiff's status as a pro se prisoner and clarifies that while such status may present practical difficulties, it does not create a statutory right to court-funded investigative services. No significant legal arguments or authorities were omitted that would change the outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18cv547-LAB-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 12 v. MOTION TO APPOINT A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 13 O. ORTEGA, et al., Defendants. 14 [ECF No. 91] 15 16 On October 21, 2020, Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 17 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion for appointment of a 18 private investigator. (ECF No. 91). Plaintiff contends he needs an 19 investigator to help locate and interview witnesses “to minimize jury trial 20 time due to testifying.” (Id. at 1). 21 Title 28, U.S.C. § 1915, authorizes federal courts to permit 22 commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees and costs upon a 23 showing of indigency and allows indigents who are unable to pay the entire 24 filing fee upon filing to pay in installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) & (b). 25 Section 1915 does not authorize or require federal courts to finance or 26 subsidize a civil action or appeal by paying expert fees or other costs. Hadsell 1 ||v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 2 ||1997); Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). The expenditure of 3 || public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized 4 ||by Congress. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976); 5 || Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989). 6 Plaintiff has not shown any Congressional authority for the Court to 7 for an investigator for him in this civil action. An incarcerated pro se 8 || plaintiff may have great difficulty pursuing his action from prison, but that 9 ||does not mean that the Court can or must fund his efforts. He must finda 10 || way to prosecute his action within his financial means and consistent with 11 || his status as a prisoner. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for a private investigator is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2020 Mitel by. [= Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27