Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01823
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Foster denied Larson’s motion to have the court pay expert and investigator expenses.
Hollis J. Larson’s request for the court to pay expert-witness, private-investigator, and deposition expenses was denied; the opinion does not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Hollis J. Larson asked the court to pay for psychologists, a private investigator, and depositions related to his civil claims. He argued that a fee-waiver law and an evidence rule authorized the payments.
The court noted that it had denied Larson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and that he had paid the fee. It also explained that the fee-waiver law does not authorize payment of discovery expenses and that court-appointed experts are generally used to help the court, not one party. Larson already had evidence that a psychologist diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and did not show why additional experts or an investigator were necessary.
The court denied Larson’s motion. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster concluded that Larson had not shown sufficiently compelling circumstances for appointing or funding an expert witness.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:23-cv-01823
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Hollis J. Larson, a civil detainee at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, brought claims under federal and state law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He initially asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, but the court denied that request because it found he had resources to pay the fee. Larson then paid it.
Larson later filed a motion titled “Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding in Forma Pauperis (Expert Witness Fees).” He asked the court to pay for retaining several psychologists and a licensed private investigator, as well as costs associated with deposing those individuals. He relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which regulates proceedings for parties unable to pay court costs, and Federal Rule of Evidence 706, which addresses court-appointed experts.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Larson’s reliance on Section 1915 for two reasons. First, the court had already denied his fee-waiver application, and Larson did not provide evidence supporting reconsideration. Second, the court explained that Section 1915 does not authorize payment of a civil litigant’s discovery costs, including witness fees, court-reporter fees, transcription fees, or deposition expenses. The court stated that even a party proceeding without paying the filing fee remains responsible for witness and related discovery costs.
The court also explained that Rule 706 generally allows a court to appoint an expert to assist the court, rather than to benefit one party. Appointment and an order requiring a party to advance expert fees are appropriate only in compelling circumstances. Such circumstances may exist when an expert is necessary for a claim to survive summary judgment.
Larson said he needed experts to establish that he had post-traumatic stress disorder. But he acknowledged that at least one psychologist had already diagnosed him with that condition, and he did not explain why another psychologist was needed to make the same diagnosis. He also did not explain how a private investigator related to the diagnosis. The court found that his claims did not depend on proving medical negligence or recklessness and that he could pursue them without an expert witness.
The court distinguished an earlier related proceeding in which a court had considered appointing an expert for a party who alleged inadequate cancer treatment, was proceeding without paying the filing fee, and needed expert assistance to evaluate the merits of claims involving medical malpractice. The court found those circumstances did not apply to Larson’s claims, fee status, or request for expert assistance.
Disposition
The court declined to appoint an expert under either Section 1915 or Rule 706. Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that Larson’s motion, ECF No. 114, was DENIED.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.