(PC) Williams v. Beer et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN W. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION AND JUDICIAL
DIRECTIVE; AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT PRO BONO COUNSEL; AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT AN
INDEPENDENT EXPERT
(ECF Nos. 163, 164)
Plaintiff John Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now before the Court are three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for request for clarification
and judicial directive; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel; and (3) Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint an independent expert.
I. MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND JUDICIAL DIRECTIVE
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for request for clarification and judicial
directive. (ECF No. 163). In this motion, he asks for “clarification on how to admit [a] reporter’s
transcript” of a preliminary hearing in his underlying criminal case held on October 7, 2020,
noting that there is an “admonishment[]” in the transcript stating, “Warning! Pursuant to
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 165 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
California Government Code Section 69954 no party or person shall provide or sell a copy or
copies of a court reporter’s transcript to any other party or person.” (Id. at 1-2) (minor
alterations). Plaintiff attaches a copy of the transcript to his motion.
The Court cannot provide Plaintiff with legal advice. However, it notes that Cal. Gov’t
Code § 69954, which generally concerns compensation for transcripts prepared by reporters,
includes the following provision: “Any court, party, or person who has purchased a transcript
may, without paying a further fee to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit
pursuant to court order or rule, or for internal use, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or
copies to any other party or person.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 69954(d).
II. MOTION TO APPOINT PRO BONO COUNSEL
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a combined motion to appoint pro bono counsel and
an independent expert. (ECF No. 164).
Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint him counsel to assist him in filing a cover-up claim.
Regarding Plaintiff’s proposed cover-up claim, the Court notes that its April 1, 2021 screening
order stated as follows:
It is not clear if Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim based on a conspiracy to
coverup the alleged excessive force incident. “To the extent that Plaintiff attempts
to raise a coverup claim, it is premature. Allegations that officials engaged in a
cover-up state a constitutional claim only if the cover-up deprived a plaintiff of his
right of access to courts by causing him to fail to obtain redress for the
constitutional violation that was the subject of the cover-up…. A cover-up claim is
premature when, as here, Plaintiff’s action seeking redress for the underlying
constitutional violations remains pending.” Dell v. Espinoza, 2017 WL 531893, at
*7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017).
(ECF No. 12, p. 14).
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952
(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request
the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 165 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has
reviewed the record in this case and, at this time, is unable to determine that Plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate
his claims. While Plaintiff complains that he cannot successfully amend his complaint pro se to
bring a cover-up claim, that does not entitle him to counsel.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel.
III. MOTION TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT
Lastly, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint “Psychologist Dr. Brandi Mathews or mental
health expert or professional to explain to the Court and the jury the psychological impact, or
injuries, suffered as a result of not just the initial sexual, physical, and chemical assault imposed,
but more so the cover up of such coupled by the malicious criminal prosecution [of Plaintiff].”
(ECF No. 164, p. 2) (minor alterations).
The Court “has the discretion to appoint an expert” pursuant to Rule 706(a). See Walker v.
American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule
706(a) states as follows: “On a party’s motion or on its own motion, the court may order the
parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to
submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its
own choosing.” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a).
“Rule 706 should be invoked only in rare and compelling circumstances.” Monolithic
Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro Intern. Ltd., 558 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Court-
appointed experts are typically used in complex litigation to assist the finder of fact. See Walker,
180 F.3d at 1071 (noting that the district court appointed an independent medical expert where
medical testimony was not “particularly clear”); see also Wilkins v. Barber, 562 F.Supp.3d 943,
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 165 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
945 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (“[C]ourt-appointed experts typically are used in complex litigation where
the record is not clearly developed by the parties, and generally serve the purpose of aiding the
court in understanding the subject matter at hand.”). However, independent experts are not
appointed for the purpose of advocating for one party. See Faletogo v. Moya, No. 12CV631 GPC
WMC, 2013 WL 524037, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013) (“Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence does not contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an
advocate for one of the parties.”); Brooks v. Tate, No. 1:11-CV-01503 AWI, 2013 WL 4049043,
at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (noting that “Rule 706 is not a means to avoid the in forma
pauperis statute and its prohibition against using public funds to pay for the expenses of
witnesses”).
The Court will not appoint an independent expert. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the
Court needs to appoint an independent expert to understand the issues. Plaintiff does not identify
any complex issues that need clarification; rather, he intends to appear to seek an expert’s
testimony to serve as an advocate for him, which is not a proper reason for a court-appointed
expert.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint an independent expert.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for request for clarification and judicial directive is GRANTED
IN PART insofar as the Court has provided the relevant code section in this order.
(ECF No. 163).
2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel is DENIED. (ECF No. 164).
3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint an independent expert is DENIED. (ECF No. 164).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 165 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 4