Michael Louis Foster v. A. Enenmoh

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LOUIS FOSTER,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
A. ENENMOH,
Defendant–Appellee.
No. 14-15348
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01849-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Louis Foster, a California state prisoner, brought this suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Dr. A. Enenmoh had been deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment. Foster claimed that Dr. Enenmoh knew that
FILED
MAY 12 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

-- 1 of 3 --

Metamucil was the only medicine that treated his chronic constipation effectively
but refused to prescribe or approve it only because it was removed from the prison
system’s formulary. After a two-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr.
Enenmoh. Foster appeals from the jury verdict and judgment. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
On appeal, Foster argues only that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his pretrial motion for the appointment of a neutral expert witness under
Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The district court’s order denying Foster’s motion
was not legally erroneous, and the evidence in this case was not so complex that
appointment of a neutral expert witness was required. We therefore find no abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (holding that a district court abuses its discretion if it commits legal error
or if its resolution of a motion is “illogical, implausible, or without support in
inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record”); Armstrong v. Brown,
768 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A Rule 706 expert typically acts as an advisor
to the court on complex scientific, medical, or technical matters.”); Walker v. Am.
Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999)
(finding the district court’s decision to appoint a neutral expert witness under
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Federal Rule of Evidence 706 “appropriate” where the court faced “confusing” and
“contradictory evidence about an elusive and unknown disease”).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --