Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978-5/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. 34)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Polygraph Examination filed August 

12, 2024. (Doc. No. 34, “Motion”). The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s “Motion for 

Polygraph Examination” brought under Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations. (Doc. No. 

33). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks to subject unidentified correctional officials to a 

polygraph examination. (Id. at 2). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff cites to “15 CCR § as the basis 

for his Motion. (Id. at 1). The Court denies the Motion.

The regulation cited by Plaintiff provides that CDCR may administer a polygraph 

examination “in the course of an investigation of official matters” if certain conditions are met: 

“(1) The examinee has, without coercion, signed a written statement of consent to the 

examination[;] (2) The polygraph examiner is an Office of Correctional Safety staff member[;] 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 35 Filed 08/13/24 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

[and] (3) The Assistant Secretary or designee, Office of Correctional Safety, has approved the 

examination.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3293(A)(1)-(3). The provision pertains to CDCR 

investigations, not to federal litigation, and thus has no applicability here. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 

Motion provides no indication that any Defendant has consented to a polygraph examination or 

that the other conditions required for Section 3293 to apply are present here. Nor does Plaintiff 

state with particularity any other grounds for granting 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

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED.

Dated: August 13, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 35 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 2