Menefee v. Michigan Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-10024
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICO MENEFEE, Case No. 2:23-cv-10024 Plaintiff, Matthew F. Leitman United States District Judge v. Patricia T. Morris MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF United States Magistrate Judge CORRECTIONS, KRISTIN MASON, DIANE CANTERBURY-MILLER, KRISTEN BROWN, AMBER PARKER, ALLISON LOPEMAN, JOSH ALLEN, BARBARA ROSE, LORI KISSAU, and EQUYES GROENLEER,

Defendants. /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION (ECF No. 45)

Plaintiff Rico Menefee, a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants alleging violation of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1). Specifically, his claims include allegations of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, retaliation, denial of access to courts, and discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (Id.). He also alleges violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id.). The Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s equal protection claim along with several defendants in the case. (ECF No. 9, PageID.68).

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff moved the Court to order that he undergo a complete, independent medical examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. (ECF No. 45, PageID.151). Defendants opposed the motion arguing

that Plaintiff cannot use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 to obtain a court-ordered medical examination of himself. (ECF No. 48, PageID.168). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a)(1) provides that the district court “may order a party whose mental or physical condition—including blood group—is in

controversy to submit a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Rule 35 does not permit a party to seek his own medical examination. Parker v. Washington, No. 4:20-cv-11413, 2021 WL 11549708, at *3

(E.D. Mich. May 17, 2021) (Rule 35 does not “vest the court with authority to appoint an expert to examine a party wishing an examination of himself.”) (internal citations omitted); Gannaway v. Prime Care Med., Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 511, 523 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. 2015); Jarrell v. Sec. of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 3:16-cv-00095,

2017 WL 5126150, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 2017). Thus, there is no basis for the Court to order an examination of Plaintiff in this case. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 45) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Review of this order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.

72, and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). Date: February 27, 2024 S/patricia t. morriS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge