1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

INVESTIGATOR/PSYCHIATRIST (ECF # 547) AND 

MOTION TO GET COURT ORDER FOR PSYCHIATRIC EXAM AND 

FOR INVESTIGATOR (ECF #549) 

Defendant Curtis Scott, now proceeding pro se after the Court allowed him to 

terminate the services of four attorneys that it had previously appointed to represent 

him, has filed two motions in which he asks the Court to arrange for a mental health 

expert to evaluate him in connection with his upcoming sentencing. (See Motions, 

ECF ## 547, 549.) Scott also seeks the appointment of an investigator. (See Mot., 

ECF #549.) For the reasons that follow, both motions are DENIED. 

In the motions, Scott creates the impression that the Court has denied him the 

opportunity to obtain a mental health evaluation. That is false. 

The Court has twice arranged for mental health experts to evaluate Scott in 

connection with sentencing, and Scott has twice declined to take advantage of these 
2 

evaluations. First, Scott’s prior counsel moved for a psychiatric examination to be 

used in connection with (among other things) sentencing (see Mot., ECF #457), and 

the Court granted the motion and directed Bureau of Prison’s mental health 

professionals to evaluate Scott, as his counsel had requested. (See Order, ECF #463.) 

However, Scott refused to cooperate with the Bureau of Prison’s mental health 

professionals, and they were unable to complete a comprehensive assessment that 

Scott could have used at sentencing. Second, Scott’s prior counsel filed a motion 

for a psychological evaluation by Atara Abramsky, Ph.D., a forensic psychologist 

(see Mot., ECF # 489) and the Court granted that motion and agreed to pay for Dr. 

Abramsky to evaluate Scott. (See Order, ECF #496.) At a status conference before 

the Court on May 10, 2019, Scott told the Court that he did not wish to have Dr. 

Abramsky perform any evaluation on him. Even though Scott has declined to 

proceed with Dr. Abramsky, the Court will still have to pay her for the background 

preparation work that she completed before Scott discharged her.1

Given that the Court has twice arranged for mental health professionals to 

evaluate Scott in connection with sentencing, that expenses have been incurred in 

connection with the Court’s two efforts to have Scott evaluated, and that Scott has 

twice declined to participate and/or cooperate in those evaluations, the Court 

 

1

 Scott’s prior counsel explained on the record at the May 10, 2019, status conference 

that Dr. Abramsky had completed some work after her appointment was approved 

by the Court. 
3 

declines to appoint yet another mental health professional to evaluate Scott. Scott’s 

motions seeking such an appointment are DENIED. 

The Court also DENIES Scott’s request for the appointment of an 

investigator. At the status conference on May 10, 2019, the Court offered Scott the 

opportunity to identify anything else that he needed to do or to have access to in 

order to fully present his case at sentencing, and Scott replied that he just wanted to 

get the case “over with” and did not need or want anything else. The Court then 

made it “crystal clear” (the precise words used by the Court on the record) that the 

only things that would happen between the conference and the sentencing were steps 

taken by the government, and Scott agreed with that path forward. The Court set 

that path – after confirming Scott’s agreement – because the sentencing in this case 

has been delayed far too long. Because Scott confirmed on the record that he did 

not wish to take any further steps before sentencing, because Scott has not identified 

any specific steps to be taken by his proposed investigator, and because the time has 

come for sentencing, the Court will not appoint an investigator for Scott at this very 

late date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 28, 2019 
4 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 28, 2019, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764