Goodlow, Jr. v. Camacho
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
A pro se prisoner plaintiff moved ex parte for the court to order an independent medical examination of himself. The court denied the motion, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 does not authorize the court to appoint an expert to examine a party who wishes to examine himself.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's ex parte request for a medical evaluation is denied.“Plaintiff's motion for a court-ordered medical examination of himself is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, which governs examinations of parties whose condition is in controversy and requires a showing of good cause. The court relied on Smith v. [Redacted] to support the proposition that Rule 35 does not allow a party to compel an examination of themselves. This interpretation is consistent with the rule's purpose of facilitating discovery of relevant medical facts for the opposing party, rather than serving as a mechanism for a party to obtain a medical opinion for their own benefit. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the specific rule governing the motion. However, it is a very brief order that does not address the underlying merits of the plaintiff's claim or the specific medical condition in controversy, focusing solely on the procedural mechanism of Rule 35. It is a defensible result based on the cited authority, but it skips any discussion of whether the plaintiff's condition was actually 'in controversy' in the litigation, which is a prerequisite for Rule 35 to apply at all.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOODLOW, JR., Case No.: 18-cv-709-CAB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE REQUEST FOR MEDICAL EVALUATION 14 CAMACHO, et al., Defendants. 15 [ECF No. 87] 16 17 Plaintiff Ivan Frances Goodlow, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has moved ex parte for the Court to 19 order an independent medical examination for him. 20 Rule 35 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to 21 “order a party whose mental or physical condition [] is in controversy to 22 submit to a physical or mental exam . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1). Ordering 23 a party to submit to a mental or physical exam requires a showing of “good 24 cause and [] notice to all parties and the person to be examined.” Id. 25 Rule 35, however, “does not vest the court with authority to appoint an 26 expert to examine a party wishing an examination of himself.” Smith v. 1 ||2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66480 (D. Neb. 2007) (denying a prisoner’s request for 2 || his own medical examination under Rule 385). 3 Plaintiff's motion for a court-ordered medical examination of himself is 4 || DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 2, 2020 tlh | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27