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)
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?