Jackson v. Paramo et al

Filing 132

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Objections to Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Polygraph Examination. (ECF No. 130 ) Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 6/7/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Case No.: 17CV882-CAB (BLM)

DUWAYNE JACKSON,

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

D. PARAMO, et al.,

14

[ECF No. 130]

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Order of Polygraph Examination that

20

was received by the Court on April 4, 2019 and accepted on discrepancy on April 5, 2019. ECF

21

Nos. 112-113.

22

examination to Plaintiff regarding his allegations in the instant matter. ECF No. 113 at 1.

Plaintiff sought an order requiring Defendants to administer a polygraph

23

On April 24, 2019, Defendant O. Navarro timely opposed Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 120.

24

That same day Defendants L. Romero, and G. Valdovinos joined Defendant Navarro’s opposition

25

and filed an opposition of their own. ECF No. 121.

26

On May 1, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for order of

27

polygraph examination.

28

additional discovery in the form of a polygraph examination to strengthen his case, but that both

ECF No. 124.

In its order, the Court noted that Plaintiff sought

1

17cv882-CAB (BLM)

1

fact and expert discovery in this matter closed on November 26, 2018. Id. at 2. The Court

2

further noted that the Court did not have the authority to order the prison staff in Sacramento,

3

where Plaintiff is housed, to administer such an examination and that the discovery Plaintiff

4

sought was not proportional to the needs of the case in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 26(b)(1). Id.

6

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a Document entitled Objections to Order Denying

7

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Polygraph Examination that was received by the Court on June 3,

8

2019 and accepted on discrepancy on June 4, 2019.

9

Plaintiff’s objections, the Court is unclear as to whether Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider

10

ECF Nos. 129-130.

After reviewing

its May 1, 2019 order or appealing the Court’s order. See ECF No. 130.

11

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any

12

motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge

13

and has been refused in whole or in part . . . .” S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The party seeking

14

reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist

15

which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2)

16

permits motions for reconsideration within “twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the ruling,

17

order or judgment sought to be reconsidered.” Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of a

18

motion for reconsideration as his objections do not include any “new or different facts and

19

circumstances . . . which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” ECF

20

No. 130. Accordingly, if Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s May 1, 2019 order,

21

the request is DENIED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/7/2019

24
25
26
27
28
2

17cv882-CAB (BLM)