(PC) Jones v. Jimenez

E.D. California

(PC) Jones v. Jimenez

DecidedSeptember 10, 2019

Docket1:14-cv-02045

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Jones v. Jimenez ((PC) Jones v. Jimenez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Jones v. Jimenez, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JEREMY JONES, ) Case No. 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. ) OBTAIN AND INTRODUCE POLYGRAPH ) EXAMINATION 14 JIMENEZ, et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) [ECF No. 139] ) 16 ) ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On February 14, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 21 that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 128.) 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to receive and submit a polygraph examination. 23 However, as Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s January 10, 2017, Findings and Recommendations, 24 “Plaintiff cannot assert an independent cause of action based on any purported violation of sections of 25 the California Code of Regulations, including the failure to provide Plaintiff with a polygraph 26 examination, and Plaintiff’s due process claim is not proceeding on such allegations.” (ECF No. 52, at 27 7:17-19); see also Barboza v. Kelsey, No. 03-3855, 2008 WL 2512785, at *11 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 28 2008) (the minimal procedural requirements guaranteed by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) 1 || do not encompass a right to have evidence tested for fingerprints or subjected to similar scientific 2 || analysis); Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988) Ginmate not entitled to take a 3 || polygraph examination addressing whether the participated in planning or furthering an escape); 4 || Miller v. Brown, No 07-2020 (JLL), 2007 WL 1876506, at *8 (D.N.J. June 26, 2007) (allegations tha 5 || prison officials rejected an inmate’s demands for fingerprinting and polygraph testing did not state a 6 || due process claim); Liebers v. Clarke, No. 4:03CV3322, 2005 WL 2347270, at *3 (D. Neb. Sept. 26, 7 || 2005); Hamilton v. Scott, 762 S.Supp. 794, 802 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (rejecting an inmate’s claims that his 8 || due process rights were violated when prison staff “ignored” his request for a fingerprint analysis of < 9 || weapon and a polygraph examination because the inmate “had no constitutional right to the grant of 10 || his request for ‘scientific’ testing to establish non-ownership of the weapon’). 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to obtain and submit a polygraph examination is DENIED. 12 13 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (ee 14 || Dated: _ September 10, 2019 OF 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JEREMY JONES, ) Case No. 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. ) OBTAIN AND INTRODUCE POLYGRAPH ) EXAMINATION 14 JIMENEZ, et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) [ECF No. 139] ) 16 ) ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On February 14, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 21 that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 128.) 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to receive and submit a polygraph examination. 23 However, as Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s January 10, 2017, Findings and Recommendations, 24 “Plaintiff cannot assert an independent cause of action based on any purported violation of sections of 25 the California Code of Regulations, including the failure to provide Plaintiff with a polygraph 26 examination, and Plaintiff’s due process claim is not proceeding on such allegations.” (ECF No. 52, at 27 7:17-19); see also Barboza v. Kelsey, No. 03-3855, 2008 WL 2512785, at *11 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 28 2008) (the minimal procedural requirements guaranteed by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) 1 || do not encompass a right to have evidence tested for fingerprints or subjected to similar scientific 2 || analysis); Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 812 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988) Ginmate not entitled to take a 3 || polygraph examination addressing whether the participated in planning or furthering an escape); 4 || Miller v. Brown, No 07-2020 (JLL), 2007 WL 1876506, at *8 (D.N.J. June 26, 2007) (allegations tha 5 || prison officials rejected an inmate’s demands for fingerprinting and polygraph testing did not state a 6 || due process claim); Liebers v. Clarke, No. 4:03CV3322, 2005 WL 2347270, at *3 (D. Neb. Sept. 26, 7 || 2005); Hamilton v. Scott, 762 S.Supp. 794, 802 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (rejecting an inmate’s claims that his 8 || due process rights were violated when prison staff “ignored” his request for a fingerprint analysis of < 9 || weapon and a polygraph examination because the inmate “had no constitutional right to the grant of 10 || his request for ‘scientific’ testing to establish non-ownership of the weapon’). 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to obtain and submit a polygraph examination is DENIED. 12 13 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (ee 14 || Dated: _ September 10, 2019 OF 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Jones v. Jimenez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-jones-v-jimenez-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack