Larson v. Lake

Background

The case concerns Greene’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors. Greene alleged that conditions at Carlton County Jail violated his constitutional rights.

Greene previously asked the court to appoint expert witnesses and require the defendants to pay their fees. A magistrate judge denied that request. Greene then filed the motion addressed in this order, seeking expert costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and again asking for expert assistance. He identified possible experts in mental health and jail conditions, but acknowledged that he did not know the precise extent of the expert testimony he would need.

Arguments and analysis

Greene argued that his inability to pay and his status as a person allowed to proceed without paying court fees entitled him to an expert. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the statute governing that status does not authorize court-subsidized experts or payment by the court or an opposing party for litigation expenses other than court fees.

Greene also relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 706, which permits a court to appoint an expert to assist the court and allows the court to allocate the expert’s costs among the parties. The court explained that such appointments are uncommon and are intended to aid the court, not to provide an expert for one party. It stated that indigent civil litigants generally must bear the costs of their own experts.

The court distinguished an Eighth Circuit decision in which the government’s conduct had disrupted an ongoing trial and the circumstances made an expert appointment especially appropriate. The court also discussed an Eighth Circuit case indicating that an expert may sometimes be necessary for a claim to survive summary judgment, which is a pretrial decision made when the evidence does not show a genuine dispute requiring a trial. The court concluded that Greene had not shown that expert testimony was necessary to advance his claims or to survive summary judgment.

The court further noted that the renewed motion was effectively a motion asking the court to reconsider the magistrate judge’s earlier order. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, Greene needed prior permission to file that type of motion. He had not obtained permission, so the court stated that it could deny the motion on that procedural basis alone. The court instead proceeded to consider the merits of the request. The court also noted that any request to change the deadline for an expert plan should have been made under the federal and local rules governing scheduling orders.

Disposition

The court ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Payment of Fees and Costs, docket number 84, was DENIED. This order did not resolve Greene’s underlying civil-rights claims.