Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978-7/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. 41) 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

OPT OUT OF A SECOND SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

DECEMBER 13, 2024 DEADLINE 

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Pretrial Statement and Motion for 

a Settlement Conference and Miscellaneous Request to Bring Case to a[n] Ending [by] Polygraph 

Test.” (Doc. No. 41). Although labeled as a “Pretrial Statement,” the pleading does not contain 

any information required by Local Rule 281.1 Instead, Plaintiff seeks a polygraph test and a 

second settlement conference in his pleading. Thus, the Court does not consider the pleading to 

be a Pretrial Statement because it wholly fails to comply with Local Rule 281. 

1 A pleading’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 

(9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 

1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the pleading], however styled, to be the type proper for the 

relief requested.” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/03/24 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

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for a polygraph test, the Court twice previously denied 

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Polygraph Examination” brought under Title 9 of the California Code of 

Regulations and under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3293(A)(1)-(3). (Doc. Nos. 33, 35). The Court 

has no authority to order a polygraph examination of Plaintiff. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference, the Court notes that the Parties’ 

first settlement conference held on August 28, 2023 resulted in an impasse. The Court, however,

is willing to afford the parties a second opportunity to engage in alternative dispute resolution if 

all parties believe a second settlement conference would be fruitful. Attempting to resolve this 

matter through settlement now would save all parties the time and expense of preparing for trial. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED to the extent 

Plaintiff requests a polygraph examination.

2. No later than December 13, 2024, Defendants shall file a notice to opt out of a 

second settlement conference. If Defendants do not opt out by close of business on 

December 13, 2024, the Court will set this case for a second settlement conference 

before a United States Magistrate Judge. 

3. Absent further order by the Court, Plaintiff shall serve and file a pretrial statement as 

described in the Court’s October 21, 2024 Order on or before January 13, 2025.

Dated: December 2, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2