Ngono v. United States

Background

Andre Marie Ngono, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The opinion states that Ngono alleged psychiatric injuries.

The magistrate judge assigned to manage the case ordered Ngono on November 10, 2021, to undergo a mental examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. On December 15, 2021, the magistrate judge denied Ngono’s request to record the examination and ordered him to appear on January 7 and January 12, 2022, or on other dates agreed by the parties.

Ngono objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). He argued that the examination could create serious risks to his life, including a psychiatric episode and suicidal thoughts. He also argued that the magistrate judge should not have required the examination because an earlier ruling had found that his medical records were sufficient for the court to decide a motion concerning an independent medical expert.

Ruling

Judge Caproni dismissed Ngono’s Rule 72(a) objection as untimely. The court determined that although Ngono identified the December 15 order, his objection actually challenged the earlier November 10 order requiring him to undergo an examination. Ngono’s objection was dated December 24 and filed December 29, more than six weeks after the November 10 order and outside Rule 72(a)’s 14-day deadline.

The court explained that failing to object on time waived further judicial review of the magistrate judge’s order. The court therefore stated that it did not need to consider the merits of Ngono’s objection.

The court also ruled in the alternative that, even if the objection had been timely, it would fail. Under Rule 35, a mental examination may be ordered when a plaintiff places their mental condition in controversy and the requirements for the examination are met. The court concluded that Ngono had placed his mental condition in controversy by alleging psychiatric injuries. It further concluded that his concerns and the evidence he submitted did not justify overturning the magistrate judge’s decision.

Orders

The court ordered Ngono to appear as soon as possible for a Rule 35 examination by the United States’ psychiatrist expert, on dates agreed by the parties or ordered by the magistrate judge.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Ngono permission to appeal without paying court fees. The opinion does not decide the underlying Federal Tort Claims Act claims.