Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. De La Cruz
Defendant
J. Miramontes
Defendant
Erick Laton Stewart Sr.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK LATON STEWART SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and J. MIRAMONTES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00978-JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(Doc. No. 32)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion For Request of Polygraph Examination, 

Pursuant to 9 CCR § 30916,” filed August 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 32). Due to its brevity, the Court 

quotes Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety below:

Please take notice, that the [sic] soon as this motion may be heard in 

the entitled Court, the Petitioner/Plaintiff, hereby moves this 

honorable Court pursuant [to] 9 CCR 30916(A)(2) requesting for a 

polygraph examination for the purpose of the investigation in this 

matter.

(Id. at 1). Plaintiff cites as the basis for his Motion a California Code of Regulations provision 

pertaining to safety and security in the California Division of Juvenile Justice, which states that 

“[a]n accused ward . . .” may be given a polygraph examination if “[t]he ward is accused of being 

in possession of contraband and such contraband is found in a place to which other than staff have 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 33 Filed 08/02/24 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

2

access, and . . . [t]here is no evidence other than the location of where the contraband was found 

to link the ward to the possession of the contraband.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 9 § 30916(A)(2). 

Because the instant matter is in federal court, which is not subject to the California Code of 

Regulations, and Plaintiff is an adult California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

inmate rather than a ward in a juvenile detention facility, (see Doc. No. 1), the cited provision has 

no applicability here. Nor does Plaintiff state with particularity any other grounds for seeking the 

Order, as required by Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

7(b)(1)(B) (requiring a motion to the Court to “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the 

order.”) The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED.

Dated: August 2, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 33 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 2