Hunnicutt v. Cate et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Re 28 and 30 . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANIEL HUNNICUTT,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-0380 EMC (pr)

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary; et al.,

12

ORDER

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order requiring Defendants to file a Martinez report.

15

See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (per curiam). Defendants have opposed the

16

motion, arguing that a Martinez report would be unhelpful in this action.

17

A Martinez report refers to a document prepared by prison officials, who have – at the court's

18

insistence – undertaken an investigation of an incident and prepared a report to create an

19

administrative record that will be used in the court proceedings. See generally id. at 319-20; see,

20

e.g., id. at 319 (report was used to "enable the trial court to decide the jurisdictional issues and make

21

a determination under section 1915(a)"). "The purpose of the [Martinez] report 'is to give the court

22

the benefit of detailed factual information that may be helpful in identifying a case involving a

23

constitutional challenge to an important, complicated correctional practice, particularly one that may

24

affect more than the inmate who has filed the 1983 action.'" In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 656 (9th

25

Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Martinez reports are neither prohibited nor mandatory in the Ninth

26

Circuit, although they may in some cases be helpful tools for pretrial management of a prisoner civil

27

rights action. See id. at 656-58.

28

1

A Martinez report will not be ordered in this action. These reports are supposed to be for the

2

benefit of the court rather than the plaintiff, but a Martinez report would be of very little benefit to

3

the court in the management of this litigation. Unlike the situation in the Martinez case, there are

4

not jurisdictional or pauper questions, the resolution of which would be aided by the development of

5

a more elaborate administrative record. Unlike the situation in In re Arizona, this is not a case

6

where a constitutional deficiency that may affect multiple prisoners needs an investigation – the

7

medical care system in the California prisons already is under the guidance of a receiver appointed

8

in the Plata class action. Additionally, this is not a situation where there is any real expectation that

9

ordering an investigation would result in relief satisfactory to plaintiff: some investigation of his
claims occurred during the administrative appeals process, yet his administrative appeals were

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

denied and he now seeks millions of dollars in his complaint. Finally, a Martinez report would not

12

aid in the pretrial management of this case: the complaint has been served and defendants are

13

scheduled to file a dispositive motion within two months. Plaintiff's motion for a Martinez report is

14

DENIED. (Docket # 28.)

15

Plaintiff filed a "motion: notice of defendants' failure to file 'Rand' notice," urging that

16

defense counsel should be sanctioned for not providing a Rand notice as ordered by the court.

17

Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as frivolous. (Docket # 30.) The order on which plaintiff relies

18

clearly states that defendants are to provide the Rand notice at the time they file a motion for

19

summary judgment. (See Docket # 22.) Defendants have not yet filed a motion for summary

20

judgment; in fact, the motion is not due until December 14, 2012. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must

21

read the court's orders more carefully because he can be sanctioned for filing frivolous motions.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: November 2, 2012

26

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28

2