Orlando Hobbs v. United States, 683 F. App'x 896

Orlando Hobbs, a pro se federal prisoner, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging medical malpractice for treatment of a spinal condition.
On filing, Hobbs asked the district court to order two treating prison physicians (Drs. Robinson and O’Malley) to provide affidavits or otherwise supply medical evidence in his favor.
The magistrate and district court treated Hobbs’s request as either premature discovery or as a request for appointment of an expert; they denied relief and adopted adverse sworn declarations from the two physicians.
The district court granted summary judgment for the United States; it concluded the court had no obligation to provide or compel an expert to testify for Hobbs and could not force the treating physicians to testify in his favor.
Hobbs appealed, arguing the denial of his request for expert assistance was erroneous; he also contested summary judgment on the merits, but the appellate court did not reach the merits because of the expert-assistance issue.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by failing to exercise and explain its Rule 706(a) authority to consider appointing an expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had to consider appointing an expert under Rule 706(a) for a pro se FTCA medical-malpractice claim	Hobbs argued his request invoked the court’s Rule 706(a) discretion and his case (standards of care and causation for spinal injury) warranted appointment or at least a reasoned ruling	The United States argued the court was not required to provide or pay for an expert for an indigent litigant and that Hobbs had not shown entitlement to a court-appointed expert	The court held the district court abused its discretion by not exercising Rule 706(a) and failing to issue a reasoned ruling; vacated and remanded for the court to consider Rule 706(a) discretion
Whether the court could compel the treating physicians to provide affidavits favoring Hobbs	Hobbs requested the treating physicians be ordered to provide affidavits or testimony to support his case	The United States and district court relied on the physicians’ adverse sworn declarations and refused to compel them to testify favorably for Hobbs	The appellate court affirmed that the district court properly refused to compel the treating physicians to provide testimony contrary to their declarations

Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996) (district court must exercise Rule 706(a) discretion and issue a reasoned ruling on appointing an expert)
Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections, 713 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment premature if party lacks reasonable opportunity to discover information essential to opposition)
Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (review of expert-appointment denial is for abuse of discretion)
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1995) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize appointment of expert witnesses for indigent litigants)
Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1987) (upholding refusal to pay for expert medical witness for detainees)
Broad. Music, Inc. v. Evie’s Tavern Ellenton, Inc., 772 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard explained for appellate review)
Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189 (11th Cir. 1993) (circumstances supporting appointment of counsel when plaintiff needs help presenting the merits)