Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN KEVIN ROSS, et al.,,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01208-KJM-CKD PS

ORDER

(ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff proceeds without counsel on a first amended complaint filed on October 28, 

2021. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges jail officer Heidi Morgan used unconstitutionally excessive 

force, striking plaintiff in the back, while plaintiff was detained at the Yuba County Jail.

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting to have a specialist chosen by the court to evaluate 

plaintiff’s back. (ECF No. 30.) The motion as filed is deficient because it is not noticed in 

compliance with Local Rule 230(b).

In any event, the request will be denied without requiring proper notice by plaintiff or a 

response from defendant because it is clear the request does not set forth a proper basis for a 

medical examination. Although Rule 35(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes 

the court to order a party to submit to a physical examination at the request of an opposing party, 

see Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 119-20 (1964), it does not provide a means for

plaintiff to request a medical examination of herself for the purpose of prosecuting this case. See

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/28/22 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

2

Berg v. Prison Health Services, 376 Fed. Appx. 723, 724 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 35 does not allow 

for a physical examination of oneself”); see also Smith v. Carroll, 602 F.Supp.2d 521, 526 (D. 

Del. 2009) (“Rule 35... does not vest the court with authority to appoint an expert to examine a 

party wishing an examination of himself”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a specialist 

evaluation (ECF No. 30) is denied.

Dated: June 27, 2022

Ferreira1208.motspec

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 2