Steed v. Scott et al

Filing 19

ORDER that additional briefing on the 10 MOTION for examination by outside Doctor will be due on or before 3/1/13; and Plaintiff's motion is renoted for 3/7/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura. (CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

MICHAEL WAYNE STEED,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING

v.

13

CASE NO. C12-6058 RBL-JRC

MARY SCOTT et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge. The District Court’s authority for the referral is found in 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judges Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.
Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the Court issue an order allowing for plaintiff to be
examined by a doctor who does not work for the Pierce County Jail (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff does
not identify who he wants to conduct the examination nor does plaintiff provide the Court with
certain critical information, such as the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the
examination, as well as the person or persons who plaintiff wants to perform it. See, Fed. R. Civ.
P. 35(2)(B).

24
ORDER TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL BRIEFING 1

1

In a supplemental response, plaintiff states that he will “gladly take financial

2 responsibility” for the examination (ECF No. 17, page 4). The term “take financial
3 responsibility” could be interpreted to mean that he is willing to incur a debt that plaintiff cannot
4 pay. Plaintiff does not place any limit of the amount of money he is willing to spend or inform
5 the Court how he intends to pay. In supplemental documents, plaintiff mentioned both x-rays and
6 an MRI as possibly being part of the examination he is seeking (ECF No. 16). An examination
7 that includes these tests could well run into the thousands of dollars. The Court will need to
8 know how plaintiff intends to pay for any proposed examination.
9

Defendants object to the motion and argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 does not give the Court

10 the authority to appoint an expert for a party wishing to examine himself (ECF No. 11).
11 Defendants do not address the last sentence in Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 which gives the Court the
12 authority to order a party to produce a person who is in custody for examination. See, Fed. R.
13 Civ. P. 35.
14

Defendants need to inform the Court if they are willing to allow an outside doctor into the

15 Jail and if they will provide a proper area for the examination. Defendants also need to inform
16 the Court if they are willing to transport plaintiff to a doctor’s office, and provide security, if the
17 doctor cannot be in the Jail or a test like an MRI needs to be done outside of the Jail.
18

The additional briefing will be due on or before March 1, 2013. Plaintiff’s motion for an

19 outside examination, (ECF No. 10), is re-noted for March 7, 2013.
20

Dated this 8th day of February, 2013.

21
22
23

A
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

24
ORDER TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL BRIEFING 2