Blacher v. Johnson et al

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 73 Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment/Order/Decree, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/21/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
MARLON BLACHER,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11

1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER/AMEND
JUDGMENT/ORDER/DECREE
(ECF NO. 73)

S. JOHNSON,
12
Defendant.
13
14
15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
25
26
27
28

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
1

1

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.

2
3
4

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

5

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

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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

26
1

27
28

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”).
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

proceeding.

5
6

Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Alter/Amend

Judgment/Order/Decree is DENIED.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 21, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3