Blackburn v. Oklahoma City VA Health Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TYEASHIA M. BLACKBURN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-983-G ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Now before the Court are two Motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Tyeashia M. Blackburn. First, Plaintiff has filed a Motion (Doc. No. 40) requesting that the Court exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to secure or appoint an expert witness to provide medical evidence and testimony on her behalf in this matter. Appointment of such an expert under Rule 706 is rare and is contemplated as a measure “to aid the court.” Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 2008); Rachel v. Troutt, 829 F.3d 398 -99 (10th Cir. 2016); Gov’t’s Resp. (Doc. No. 52) at 2. Courts have rejected the proposition that the Rule permits “the appointment of, and compensation for, an expert to aid one of the parties.” Brown v. Gray, No. 06-3003, 2011 WL 6091738 , at *7 (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Motion (Doc. No. 40) is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff next seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order of May 15, 2025 (Doc. No. 53), in which the Court granted Defendant United States an extension of time to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff having shown no “clear error” or “manifest injustice” in the relief granted by the Court, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2025. CHARLES B. GOODWIN United States District Judge