Dietle v. Miranda, et al.

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/2/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 36 motion for polygraph. Any further pro se motions will be DISREGARDED. The Clerk shall serve a courtesy copy of this order on plaintiff at SVSP. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL DIETLE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-1728 WBS AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RAFAEL MIRANDA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 30, 2017, the Clerk of the Court filed plaintiff’s pro se motion 19 for polygraph. ECF No. 36. As a threshold matter, there is no legal basis for plaintiff’s pro se 20 motion for polygraph. The results of a polygraph examination are not actual evidence of the 21 events that occurred and the court can see no purpose for its submission other than to bolster 22 plaintiff’s credibility. Credibility determinations are the function of the jury, not of a judge on a 23 motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 24 Plaintiff has already submitted sworn statements in his declarations (ECF Nos. 28-4, 31-1) 25 regarding the relevant facts in this case. Additionally, plaintiff is represented by counsel and 26 therefore any pro se motions will be disregarded. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s motion for polygraph (ECF No. 36) is denied. 1 1 2. Any further pro se motions will be disregarded. 2 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order on plaintiff, 3 Darrell Dietle, CDCR #T-89292, at Salinas Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 4 93960. 5 DATED: February 2, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?