Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01159-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLON BLACHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. JOHNSON,

Defendant.

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO ALTER/AMEND 

JUDGMENT/ORDER/DECREE

(ECF NO. 73)

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

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 31, 2016, the Court held 

an Initial Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Counsel 

Derrek Lee and Christopher Becker appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant. The Court 

issued an order after the Conference that, among other things, denied Plaintiff’s Notice 

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

No. 64), which the Court construed as a motion to compel. (ECF No. 70). On December 19, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment/Order/Decree.” (ECF No. 73).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 74 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 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

2

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 

longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

According to Plaintiff, he needs to see a copy of Defendant’s certified and filed oath of 

office, because without it Defendant is “no valid-legitimate ‘public officer’ and is merely 

impersonating such....” Plaintiff further alleges that the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation serves as a vehicle for Defendant to act in subversion of the Constitution of the 

United States. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to turnover bond/insurance 

policy information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iv), and cites to cases 

that refer to the initial disclosure requirement.

Plaintiff has failed to show that he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons for granting 

relief from the order denying his motion to compel, or for reconsidering the Court’s earlier 

decision. 

Although no further explanation is needed, the Court will explain that the form initial 

disclosures are not legally required in this case under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)(iv)). Although this Court issued its own specific 

and tailored initial disclosures order,1(ECF No. 51), which was targeted to the needs in this type 

of case, it did not require applicable insurance policies to be included in initial disclosures. The 

Court continues to believe that insurance information is not relevant in this case because there is 

no argument that defendant will be unable to pay any judgment or that damages will be 

determined by the amount of insurance coverage. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for Defendant’s oath of office, Defendant’s counsel stated on 

the record that Defendant was acting under state law, and there is no reason to doubt that 

representation. Plaintiff poses no factual basis to contest this. Plaintiff’s case is not about an 

allegation that Defendant was acting fraudulently in pretending to be an agent of the state, and 

 

1 Comment to 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 (regarding Rule 26’s exemptions for certain 

categories of cases, “Case-specific orders remain proper,” and “the court can order exchange of 

similar information in managing the action under Rule 16”).

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 74 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff not entitled to discovery merely for the chance that Defendant could have been lying, 

without any evidence of such an accusation. The disputed facts in the case before this Court have 

nothing to do with Defendant’s oath of office and thus that information is not relevant to this 

proceeding. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter/Amend 

Judgment/Order/Decree is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 74 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 3