Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LAMON, No. CIV S-03-0423-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By this order, the court addresses plaintiff’s document entitled “Plaintiff’s

Motion to Submit Additional Pages with His Fourth Amended Complaint,” (Doc. 102), filed on

April 10, 2006.

Attached to plaintiff’s filing, is a fourth amended complaint. To the extent

plaintiff is requesting leave to file an oversized document, the request will be granted. The

document is, therefore, construed as plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint being filed pursuant to

the court’s January 20, 2006, order. 

As revealed by the court’s prior orders, at best plaintiff has alleged the following

claims in the various complaints filed in this action to date: (1) a Free Exercise claim based on

plaintiff’s allegations that he was prevented from practicing his religion when he was not

provided a vegetarian diet; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim based on plaintiff’s allegations that,

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 105 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

upon his initial transfer to CSP-Sacramento, he was not interviewed by psychiatric staff before

being placed in the B-facility; (3) an Eighth Amendment claim based on plaintiff’s allegations

concerning a subsequent move to a different cell; (4) an Equal Protection claim arising from the

cell move; and (5) a Due Process claim based on destruction of plaintiff’s personal property. By

order issued on June 10, 2004, this action was determined appropriate for service on the

following ten defendants: Pliler; Vance; Hawthorne; Turner; Murphy; Lytle; Loredo; Paul;

Scicluna; and Sherbourne. Between August 12, 2004, and September 21, 2004, each of these ten

defendants waived service.

A review of the fourth amended complaint reveals that plaintiff has named

numerous additional defendants and raises 21 separate claims for relief. Plaintiff, however, has

failed to obtain leave of court pursuant to an appropriate motion under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15 to file an amended complaint which exceeds the scope of the court’s prior orders

granting leave to amend. This issue will be addressed by separate findings and

recommendations. In the meantime, the ten defendants who have waived service will not be

required to respond to the fourth amended complaint pending further order of the court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ten defendants who have

waived service are relieved from any obligation to respond to the fourth amended complaint until

directed to do so by further court order. 

DATED: April 19, 2006

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 105 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2