Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VALOFF,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-6526-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO AN EYE

EXAMINATION

(Doc. 43)

Plaintiff Peter Brown (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the court’s order of November

3, 2005, the discovery phase of this litigation is open. On March 28, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 35, defendant filed a motion seeking an order requiring plaintiff to submit to an

eye examination. (Docs. 43, 44.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 17, 2006, and defendant filed

a reply on April 19, 2006. (Docs. 47, 48.) 

Rule 35(a) provides in relevant part, “When the mental or physical condition . . . of a party

. . . is in controversy, the court . . . may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination

by a suitably licensed or certified examiner . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). The moving party must

show good cause. Id.

Defendant seeks to have plaintiff examined by Donna Seabrooks, M.D., an ophthalmologist,

to determine whether plaintiff suffers from visions problems beyondordinary near or far sightedness,

and whether any vision problems arose or were likely to have arisen from the incident in which

plaintiff was sprayed with pepper spray. Defendant contends that plaintiff put the condition of his

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 51 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

eyes in controversy by alleging that as a result of being sprayed with pepper spray by defendant, he

has three spots in his left eye. Defendant contends that there is no corroborating or supporting

documentation, set forth by a qualified medical professional, in plaintiff’s medical file concerning

the development of spots caused by the pepper spray incident.

Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion on the ground that it is a motion to compel discovery

and defendant failed to make a good faith attempt to confer with him to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff

also contends that there is no controversy with respect to his vision, and objects to an examination

by Dr. Seabrooks. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Seabrooks is likely to be biased against plaintiff and

that defendant has not provided any information concerning Dr. Seabrooks’ qualifications.

A motion for an order of examination is brought pursuant to Rule 35 and is not the same as

motion to compel filed pursuant to Rule 37. For this reason, paragraph 5 in the court’s discovery

and scheduling order concerning the good faith conferral requirement does not apply to the instant

motion. Further, Local Rule 37-251, which is cited to by plaintiff in his opposition, does not apply.

(Doc. 33, Disc/Sched Order, ¶5 ln. 5.) Accordingly, the argument that defendant’s motion should

be denied for failure to make a good faith attempt to confer is rejected.

Although plaintiff contends that his vision is not in controversy, plaintiff alleges in his

complaint that following the incident in which he was sprayed with pepper spray by defendant, he

developed three little spots in his left eye. (Doc. 1, Comp., Ex. B-2.) In his motion for summary

judgment, plaintiff attests that prior to the incident, he had no vision problems and did not have spots

in either of his eyes. (Doc. 38, Brown Dec., ¶3.) Plaintiff attests that following the incident, three

spots began developing within seventy-two hours, he started developing vision problems, and he

required glasses within a month. (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff attests that he still has three spots in his left eye

and vision problems, and still needs to wear glasses. (Id., ¶5.) By claiming that after he was pepper

sprayed by defendant, he developed vision problems, including three spots in his left eye, and began

wearing glasses, plaintiff placed the condition of his vision in controversy. Any argument to the

contrary is baseless.

With respect to Dr. Seabrooks’ credentials, Rule 35(a) requires only that the examination be

conducted by a suitably licensed or certified examiner, and plaintiff has made no argument that Dr.

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 51 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Seabrooks does not qualify as such. No further showing is required under Rule 35(a). Generally,

the examiner sought by the moving party is appointed and there is no basis for deviation from that

practice. The contention that Dr. Seabrooks will likely be biased because she was hired by defendant

is not grounds for disqualifying Dr. Seabrooks.

In conclusion, the condition of plaintiff’s vision is in controversy and defendant has shown

good cause for his request. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for a court order requiring plaintiff to

submit to an examination by Dr. Donna Seabrooks, filed March 28, 2006, is HEREBY GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 51 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 3