(PC) Stewart v. De La Cruz

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00978
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Order 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICK LATON STEWART SR., Case No. 1:20-cv-00978-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH MOTION FOR POLYGRAPH 13 v. EXAMINATION 14 A. DE LA CRUZ and J. MIRAMONTES, (Doc. No. 51) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s fifth motion for a polygraph examination 21 filed December 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 51). Plaintiff states he is not seeking an examination to 22 prove he is telling the truth concerning his claim, but rather to show that one was offered and 23 administered. (Id. at 1). Defendant filed an opposition on January 21, 2025. (Doc. No. 53). 24 Plaintiff has filed four previous motions seeking a polygraph examination. (See Doc. Nos. 25 32, 34, 41, and 45). The Court has denied each motion. (See Doc. Nos. 33, 35, 42, 48). As 26 previously advised, the Court lacks jurisdiction to order state correctional officials to administer a 27 polygraph examination. See also Benyamini v. Manjuano, No. 1:06-cv-01096-AWI-GSA-PC, 28 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42960, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2012). 1 Plaintiff continues to file repeated requests for a polygraph examination, which have been 2 | considered and denied by the Court. Such repeated filings waste the Court’s limited resources 3 || and delays the resolution of this action. Each of Plaintiff's motions advance a baseless argument 4 | that was been considered and rejected by the Court. The Court will not entertain any further 5 | motions from Plaintiff for a polygraph examination. Plaintiff is warned that any further filings 6 | requesting a polygraph examination will subject him to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). 7 | “Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of ‘reasonable 8 | inquiry’ so that anything filed with the court is ‘well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not 9 | interposed for any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. F.B.1., 10 | 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 11 | U.S. 384, 393 (1990)); see also Local Rule 110 (permitting court to impose sanctions on any 12 || party who fails to comply with a court order). 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 1. Plaintiffs fifth motion for a polygraph examination (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED. 15 2. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any further motions seeking a polygraph 16 examination. 17 3. Plaintiff is warned that any further motions seeking a polygraph examination will 18 subject Plaintiff to sanctions. 19 20 Dated: _ January 29, 2025 law Zh. Sareh Zackte 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28