Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05964/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05964-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

KENNETH FAULKNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

COUNTY OF KERN, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:04-CV-05964-OWW-TAG

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

PERMITTING PSYCHOLOGICAL

EXAMINATION 

(Doc. 39)

On December 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting the

Psychological Examination of Prisoner Kenneth Faulker by Peter Russell, Ph.D. The Application is

accompanied by a Declaration of Ellen Hammill Ellison. (Doc. 39). 

An order for a psychological examination cannot issue upon an ex parte application. The

applicable rule is Fed. R. Civ. P 35(a), which sets forth the procedure for obtaining an examination

of a person whose mental condition is in controversy in a case. Rule 35(a) provides in relevant part

that:

“Order for Examination. When the mental . . . condition . . . of a party or of a

person in the custody or under the legal control of party, is in controversy, the court in

which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a . . . mental examination

by a suitably licensed or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person

in the party’s custody or control. The order may be made only on motion for good

Case 1:04-cv-05964-OWW -TAG Document 41 Filed 12/06/05 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

cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and

shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and

the person or persons by whom it is to be made.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a) (italics added).

The purpose of the notice requirement in Rule 35(a) is to provide all parties an opportunity to

be heard and to object. An ex parte grant of a party’s application for a mental examination, in the

absence of a stipulation, circumvents the notice requirement and deprives the remaining parties of an

opportunity to be heard and to object. See Leichty v. Terrill Trucking Co., 53 F.R.D. 590 (E.D. Tenn

1971), citing Lindsey v. Escude, 179 So. 2d 505, 507 n.2 (Ct. App. La. 1965) (“in federal procedures

notice [and an opportunity to respond] should be given in accordance with Federal Rules 4, 5 and 6 .

. . for motions other than those the federal rules specify may be heard ex parte . . . . which does not

include a motion for medical examination”). An order for a mental examination is not granted as of

right. Rather, there must be a showing of “good cause,” a showing that can and may be disputed. 

See Lindsey, supra, 179 So. 2d at 507; Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a).

In this instance, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application fails to satisfy the notice and hearing

requirements of this Court, and no stipulation regarding the proposed mental examination has been

filed or otherwise submitted. Plaintiff neither filed a notice of motion nor noticed a hearing date. 

See E.D. Ca. R. 37-251 ([A] hearing of a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, . . . may

be had by the filing of a notice of motion and motion scheduling the hearing date on the appropriate

calendar at least twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing.”). Plaintiff likewise failed to apply for

or obtain an order shortening time for a hearing on the Rule 35 motion. See E.D. Ca. R.

6-144(e). As no hearing was noticed at all, the 21-day requirement was not met.

Finally, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application and Proposed Order is silent as to the precise time,

“manner, conditions, and scope” of the proposed psychological examination, again contrary to the

explicit requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b). See Leichty, supra, 53 F.R.D. 590. An order for a

mental examination must contain not only the designation of the examiner and the date and place of

the examination, but must also set forth the time of the examination and the manner, conditions and

scope of the examination. Plaintiff’s application fails to provide sufficient information to allow the 

Case 1:04-cv-05964-OWW -TAG Document 41 Filed 12/06/05 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

Court to designate not only the time of the examination, but also the manner, conditions, and scope

of the examination. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Psychological

Examination (Doc. 39), is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05964-OWW -TAG Document 41 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 3