Peters v. Raymond et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and 51 Plaintiff's Motion for Physical and Mental Examination. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
RICHARD W. PETERS,
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C/O RAYMOND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:15-cv-00493-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF Nos. 50, 51

15
Before the court are Plaintiff’s two motions, one to stay this case (ECF No. 50) and another
16
seeking a court order requesting a physical and mental examination pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 35
17
(ECF No. 51). Both are predicated upon Plaintiff’s assertions that his mental and physical limitations
18
restrict or impede his ability to prosecute this case. While Plaintiff’s motions were apparently signed
19
by inmate Peters, the only documentation regarding Plaintiff’s mental status was an affidavit of inmate
20
Will Lyons, presumably an inmate assistant, who represents Plaintiff appears “confused.” Inmate Lyons
21
apparently dictated the two motions to inmate Peters. (ECF No. 50 at 3.) Plaintiff has submitted no
22
medical or mental health records regarding his conditions.
23
While Rule 35 allows a court to direct a party to submit to a mental or physical examination, such
24
an order may be made upon motion demonstrating good cause. In addition to good cause, however, the
25
motion “must specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination, as well as the
26
person who will perform it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 (a)(2). Plaintiff’s motion discusses none of these
27
criteria. Nor does Plaintiff’s motion state who should pay for the examination, which is typically borne
28
by the movant.

1

While Plaintiff’s motions are deficient in several respects, particularly disconcerting is any

2

documentation from Plaintiff’s NDOC files which would tend to validate any of Plaintiff’s contentions

3

of medical/mental infinities. Although the court recognizes any inmate Plaintiff would likely have

4

difficulty in nominating a qualified health examiner, the court itself cannot select such individuals for

5

Plaintiff. The United States Supreme Court has generally stated that although Congress provided relief

6

for violation of one’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the right to access to the courts is only a right

7

to bring complaints to federal court and not a right to discover such claims or to litigate them effectively

8

once filed with a court. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-355 (1996).

9

Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51) are DENIED, albeit without prejudice.

10

The parties should be aware of the following:

11

Any party wishing to object to this order may file, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and

12

LR IB 3-1, specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt. The deadline to file and serve

13

any responses to the objections is fourteen (14) days after service of the objection. Replies will be

14

allowed only with leave of the court.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: June 6, 2017.

17
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2