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)

Download PDF
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

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?