Hambrick #108663 v. Unknown Party et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying Plaintiff's "Request for an [sic] Motion Examination by an Outside Doctor" 39 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's "Request for an [sic] Motion Enlargement of Time" 38 as set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the discovery deadline to June 24, 2019. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to July 24, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting May 24, 2019 as the deadline for the parties to move the Court for a discovery conference pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. 13 at 3). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 4/24/2019. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Louis Hambrick, Jr.,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-00461-PHX-JJT (ESW)

Unknown Party, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s March 28, 2019 filing (Doc. 39) in which

17

Plaintiff requests examination by an outside physician pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

18

Procedure 35(a).

19

Rule 35(a)(1) authorizes the Court to order a party whose mental or physical

20

condition “is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably

21

licensed or certified examiner.”

22

condition is in controversy and good cause exists.

23

104, 119-20 (1964). It is improper to move for a Rule 35 examination for the purpose of

24

obtaining medical treatment. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1304 (10th Cir.

25

1997) (upholding denial of inmate’s Rule 35 motion where the “primary purpose was to

26

obtain medical care and to complain of deliberate indifference to his serious medical

27

needs”).

28

examination of oneself . . . .” Berg v. Prison Health Services, 376 F. App’x 723, 724 (9th

Such an examination is justified if Plaintiff’s medical
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S.

Further, it has been held that “Rule 35 does not allow for a physical

1

Cir. 2010); see also Smith v. Carroll, 602 F.Supp.2d 521, 526 (D. Del. 2009) (stating that

2

Rule 35 “does not vest the court with authority to appoint an expert to examine a party

3

wishing an examination of himself”).

4

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for an independent

5

medical examination pursuant to Rule 35. Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the

6

ability to pay for the costs of an independent medical examination.

7

Hollingsworth, No. 2:14-cv-00519-LDG-PAL, 2015 WL 1877426, at *1 (D. Nev. April

8

22, 2015) (“Rule 35 does not authorize [pro se prisoner plaintiff] to seek his own free

9

examination to obtain evidence to prosecute his case.”). Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 39) will

10

See Patton v.

be denied.

11

The Court also has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Request for an [sic] Motion Enlargement

12

of Time” (Doc. 38). No response has been filed and the time to do so has passed. See

13

LRCiv 7.2(i). For good cause shown, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Request (Doc. 38)

14

as set forth herein. The Court will extend the discovery deadline to June 24, 2019. The

15

Court will set May 24, 2019 as the deadline for the parties to move the Court for a

16

discovery conference pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 13 at 3).

17

Based on the foregoing,

18

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Request for an [sic] Motion Examination

19
20
21
22
23

by an Outside Doctor” (Doc. 39).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Request for an [sic] Motion
Enlargement of Time” (Doc. 38) as set forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the discovery deadline to June 24,
2019. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to July 24, 2019.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting May 24, 2019 as the deadline for the

25

parties to move the Court for a discovery conference pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling

26

Order (Doc. 13 at 3).

27

Dated this 24th day of April, 2019.

28

-2-