(PS) Ferreira da Silva v. Ross

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, No. 2:21-cv-01208-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JONATHAN KEVIN ROSS, et al.,, (ECF No. 30) 15 Defendant.

17 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.

20 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).

23 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 | 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.

3 || Del. 2009) (“Rule 35... does not vest the court with authority to appoint an expert to examine a || party wishing an examination of himself”).

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for a specialist || evaluation (ECF No. 30) is denied.

7 | Dated: June 27, 2022 / hice MN fe Ho. AG CAROLYN K DELANEY?

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Ferreiral208.motspec