Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01159-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLON BLACHER, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

S. JOHNSON,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF NO. 64)

Marlon Blacher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 (ECF Nos. 5 & 26). This case 

now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on July 16, 2012 (ECF No. 1), against Chief 

Deputy Warden S. Johnson (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s claim relating to an unclothed body 

search (ECF No. 20).

 

1 At the Initial Scheduling Conference the Court asked if Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction, Plaintiff answered in the affirmative, and the Court stated that it would send Plaintiff another consent 

form. However, as Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin noted (ECF No. 29, p. 1 n. 1), “[o]n July 30, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed a form consenting to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 5.) On October 15, 2013, Defendant 

Johnson filed a form consenting to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 26.) Subsequently, on October 30, 

2013, Plaintiff filed a form declining the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff may not withdraw 

his consent in this manner. Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference 

can be withdrawn only by the district court, and only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under 

extraordinary circumstances shown by any party.’ Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 

Fellman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1984)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). 

There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate 

judge. Dixon at 480. Plaintiff has not shown any extraordinary circumstances to justify withdrawal of his consent.” 

Therefore, Plaintiff has already consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and no further confirmation is needed. 

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 70 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On October 31, 2016, the Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”)

in this case. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Counsel Derrek Lee and

Christopher Becker appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

1. PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 48). 

Defendant failed to file any response. At the conference, defense counsel claimed that it did 

not need to file a response because Plaintiff’s motion was filed before Defendant filed its 

answer on August 8, 2016. 

Defendant waived service on October 7, 2013 and filed a response pleading in the form 

of a motion to dismiss on October 9, 2013. (ECF No. 23, 24). Defendant itself filed a motion 

for summary judgment on August 8, 2016. (ECF No. 50). During the conference, the Court 

pressed Defendant for a rule that would excuse Defendant from responding to Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment. Defendant requested permission to file a response.

On or before November 21, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to file a late 

response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and to file a response to Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff has until December 12, 2016, to file a 

response to Defendant’s motion for leave to file a late response to Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment, and a reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment. The Court will take the matter under submission at that time.

2. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

For the reasons described at the conference, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Notice 

Concerning Items Absent from Defendant’s Initial Disclosures and Petition for Rendering

(ECF No. 64), which the Court construes as a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion requests 

that the Court compel Defendant to render copies of any and all documents that are necessary 

to identify the underwriter(s) for the bond(s) of office for Defendant, all necessary details to file 

a claim against said bond(s), and the certified and filed Article XX, Section 3, Constitution of 

California Oath of Office Subscribed by Defendant.

As to Plaintiff’s request that the Court compel Defendant to produce information 

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 70 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

necessary to identify the underwriter(s) for the bond(s) of office for Defendant and all 

necessary details for Plaintiff to be able to file a claim against said bond(s), this request will be 

denied. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) requires disclosure of any 

applicable insurance policy, the Court’s initial disclosure order (ECF No. 51) does not. 

Additionally, Plaintiff did not put forward an argument as to why this information is relevant. 

As to Plaintiff’s request that the Court compel Defendant to produce a copy of the 

certified and filed Article XX, Section 3, Constitution of California Oath of Office Subscribed 

by Defendant, as discussed at the Conference, this request will be denied because the document 

Plaintiff is requesting that Defendant produce is not relevant. Defendant stated on the record 

that it was acting under color of state law.

3. DISCOVERY ISSUES

As discussed at the Conference, Defendant agreed to request documents in discovery 

from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and respond to 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests with documents held by the CDCR, or assert objections on behalf 

of the CDCR, while maintaining Defendant’s objection that it does not have possession, 

custody or control of documents held by the CDCR. Defendant will notify the Court if it

withholds any documents under the official information privilege.

Additionally, all parties will be ordered to produce photographs of the location where the 

search(es) that led to the filing of this case were executed, photographs depicting the view from 

the officer station at the location where the search(es) were conducted, and any diagrams or 

documentation regarding the layout of the area where the search(es) were conducted. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant has until November 21, 2016, to file a motion for leave to file a late response 

to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment. Plaintiff has until December 12, 2016, to file a response to 

Defendant’s motion for leave to file a late response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, and a reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment;

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 70 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (which was titled Notice Concerning Items Absent from 

Defendant’s Initial Disclosures and Petition for Rendering) is DENIED; and

3. Within 30 days from the date of the service of this order, all parties are to produce 

photographs of the location where the search(es) that led to the filing of this case were 

executed, photographs depicting the view from the officer station at the location where 

the search(es) were conducted, and any diagrams or documentation regarding the layout 

of the area where the search(es) were conducted to the extent they have any such 

documents (or such documents are held by the CDCR). If any such items are being 

withheld as privileged, the party withholding the items shall notify the Court so that the 

Court may consider conducting an in camera review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 70 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 4