Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-20/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

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

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

(Docs. 71, 73)

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion “for a status

conference or court filing docket.” (Doc. #71.) On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion

requesting permission to perform a polygraph examination, presumably on himself. (Doc. #73.)

In his motion for a status conference, Plaintiff states that he was temporarily transferred to

the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in July and returned to Salinas Valley state prison on August

3, 2010. Plaintiff requests a status conference or copy of the Court’s docket to determine whether

Plaintiff missed any filings while he was away. As a courtesy, the Court will order the Clerk’s

Office to provide Plaintiff with a printout of the docket for this case. However, Plaintiff is advised

that he is responsible for keeping the court apprised of his most current address in order to ensure

that he receives all court filings in a timely manner.

In his motion requesting permission to take a polygraph examination, Plaintiff argues that

a polygraph examination is necessary to “level the playing field” in terms of the credibility of

Plaintiff’s testimony compared to the testimony of correctional officers. Plaintiff’s three-page

1

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 93 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 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

motion requests permission to take a polygraph examination and introduce the results as evidence

during trial. However, Plaintiff has failed to explain why he needs the court's permission to take the

examination and has failed to provide any arguments regarding the admissibility of the examination.

Presumably, Plaintiff’s incarceration interferes with his access to the equipment necessary

to conduct the examination. However, the Court will not rule on Plaintiff’s motion based on

presumptions. If Plaintiff is unable to perform a polygraph examination without court intervention,

Plaintiff must seek a preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to provide him with access to

polygraph equipment. Plaintiff has failed to present any argument regarding the propriety of

preliminaryinjunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365,

374 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest” ).

Plaintiff also requests permission to introduce the results of the polygraph examination as

evidence during his trial. To the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court to rule on the admissibility

of a polygraph examination, Plaintiff is advised that he may request that this evidence be admitted

at trial; however, Defendants may file a motion seeking to exclude this evidence at trial. The Court

will not rule on the admissibility of Plaintiff’s polygraph examination until it is properly raised

before the Court, such as in a motion in limine. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 26, 2010, motion for a status conference is DENIED;

2. The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a printout of the docket for this case; and

2. Plaintiff’s August 30, 2010, motion for permission to conduct a polygraph

examination is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 93 Filed 01/13/11 Page 2 of 2