Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00776/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00776-30/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

T. WAN, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00776-OWW-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR A PHYSICAL AND

MENTAL EXAMINATION

(Doc. 103.)

I. BACKGROUND

Panaofo Tsugito Tilei ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for the court to order a

physical and mental examination of plaintiff under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(Doc. 103.)

II. RULE 35 - PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATIONS

Under Rule 35, the court may order a party "whose mental or physical condition . . . is in

controversy" to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed.R.Civ.P 35(a)(1). Plaintiff requests

a physical and mental examination, alleging that he is suffering from a myriad of serious health problems

caused by prison officials where he is incarcerated. Plaintiff submits a copy of a civil complaint filed

1

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 104 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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

by plaintiff in case 1:10-cv-00069-LJO-SKO-PC on January 13, 2010, in which he claims defendants

violated his rights to adequate medical care. Plaintiff also refers the court to the motion for extension

of time he filed in the present action on June 3, 2010, in which he complains of multiple health

problems.

The present action proceeds onlyon plaintiff's claims for retaliation and for violation of his rights

to due process, and plaintiff's mental or physical condition is not in controversy in this action. For this 1

reason, plaintiff's motion shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a physical and

mental examination under Rule 35 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

All other claims were dismissed from this action on July 8, 2008. (Doc. 26.)

1

2

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 104 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2