Pyles v. Gaetz et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 82 Motion requesting a physical examination. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 5/10/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER PYLES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAGID FAHIM and WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-378-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting a Physical Examination Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(Doc. 82). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an examination by two
specialists, a Orthopedic Doctor and a Neurologist, as well as an MRI and/or CT scan in order to
identify Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants have filed a Response (Doc. 86) in opposition to the motion.
Based on the following, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion requesting physical examination (Doc.
82).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 (a)(1) allows the Court to “order a party whose
mental or physical condition…is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a
suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(a)(1) (emphasis adding) However, Plaintiff
here wants the Court to order himself to submit to a physical examination. In essence, Plaintiff is
requesting that he be allowed to see a specialist to bolster his claims. This is not the purpose of Rule
35 which is to allow the other side to pursue a physical examination from a party whose condition is at
issue. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Rule 35.
Further, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting an order for IDOC to allow him to see a
specialist in the form of a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make any

of the required showings to obtain a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for a physical examination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 10, 2013.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2