Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 127

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 124 Motion for Court-Ordered Mental Examination signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/29/2014. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC LOUIS BRANCH, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT-ORDERED MENTAL EXAMINATION (Doc. 124.) Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 D. UMPHENOUR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Louis Branch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 22 commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third 23 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour, 24 Szalai, and Alvarez for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s safety in violation 25 of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation of the 26 First Amendment. (Doc. 94.) This case is presently in the discovery phase. 27 28 On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to order Plaintiff’s mental examination. (Doc. 124.) 1 1 II. COURT-ORDERED MENTAL EXAMINATION 2 Plaintiff requests the court to order Plaintiff’s mental examination to support his 3 allegation that Defendants caused him emotional and mental trauma. Plaintiff argues that 4 Defendants have placed his mental condition in controversy by their discovery responses which 5 refute Plaintiff’s allegations of chronic emotional and mental trauma resulting from the alleged 6 July 11, 2004 assault on Plaintiff. 7 The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when 8 authorized by Congress, see Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted), 9 and the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the 10 purpose sought by Plaintiff in the instant request. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for a court- 11 ordered mental examination shall be denied. 12 III. 13 14 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for a court-ordered mental examination, filed on May 22, 2014, is DENIED. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 29, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?