Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423-19/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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining

order and/or preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 139, 140, 141, 146, 148, 149, 152, and 177). 

I. BACKGROUND

The following is a summary of plaintiff’s filings:

1. “Motion for Reconsideration” (Doc. 139). The motion is not filed by

plaintiff, but by inmate Sean Montgomery on behalf of plaintiff. In the motion, inmate

Montgomery states that he heard plaintiff arguing with correctional officers Frescura, Vikjord,

Castro, and Hernandez (none of whom are defendants to this action) and that the correctional

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 192 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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

officers demanded that plaintiff give them a letter he had recently received from the court. 

Inmate Montgomery further states that the correctional officers said they were going to return the

letter to the court “because they did not like how Mr. Lamon signed the receipt.” Inmate

Montgomery also states that plaintiff complained to him that “other correctional officers” had

“amplified the tainting of his food, had stopped all of his medical care, and he believed they stole

his mail in this case.” The motion does not seek reconsideration of any particular magistrate

judge or district judge order, but states: “Wherefore, the afore said reasons and Pursuant to Rule

(B)(3), Mr. Lamon begs this court to take whatever action appropriate to preserve the law and

protect his rights.” 

2. “Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. 140). Plaintiff filed this document

seeking a “Rule 60(b)(3) protective order” to address an “ongoing campaign of life-threatening

harassment to interfere with an/or obstruct plaintiff’s meaningful prosecution of this action. . . .” 

Again, plaintiff complains of problems with his legal mail. He also states that prison officials

have deliberately placed him in housing assignments with “Southern-Mexican” and “ActiveWhite” inmates, who are traditionally enemies of African-American inmates. Plaintiff seeks an

order because “Plaintiff is in danger of suffering irreparable injury.” Plaintiff does not name any

defendants to this action in the motion. 

3. “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. 141). The gravamen of this

motion is alleged interference with plaintiff’s right of access to the courts under the First

Amendment. Plaintiff claims that he is “the victim of a highly-organized conspiracy by agents,

servants, and employees of the Director of the California Department of Corrections . . . Steven

Kernan, Warden, and James Walker, Chief Deputy Warden . . . and Darrel Adams, Warden . . .

and their . . .. agents to obstruct my access to the court and block my impending testimony about

certain case-related . . . staff misconduct. . . .” Plaintiff also continues to complain about “foodtainting.” Plaintiff’s motion does not name any individuals who are defendants to this action. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and an order “to transfer all of my related cases to this court and

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 192 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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 These two filings are duplicative. 1

3

to this action because this court has the lowest docket number.” As to related cases, plaintiff

references a number of actions pending in this court as well as the California Superior Court. 

4. “Motion for Order of Protection” (Doc. 146). Plaintiff states that “. . . due

to sadistic interference of prison officials Plaintiff is unable to proceed and, based on the

declaration of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff respectfully moves the court for an order of protection.” 

Plaintiff indicates that he has filed an action in the Fresno division of this court “. . . related to

the complained of interference.” This case is Lamon v. Tilton, et al., case no. 07-0493-AWIDLB-P. It appears that plaintiff is complaining of alleged interference with respect to

prosecuting that action. Plaintiff does not name any individuals who are defendants to the instant

action. 

5. “Motion for an Order of Protection” (Docs. 148 and 149). Plaintiff again 1

complains of interference with his legal mail. He states: “Following the defendants’ failure to

have this case dismissed on March 2, 2007, prison officials here at California State Prison –

Corcoran escalated their acts of interference and harassment against me, including, but not

limited to, denying me access to the law library . . . , tainting my meals with pain-inducing

chemicals, and repeatedly stealing my legal work-product, notes, and mailings to and from the

courts.” Plaintiff does not name any defendants to this action. 

6. “Motion for an Order of Protection and Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. Motion to

Compel. Discovery” (Doc. 152). Plaintiff seeks to “compel” responses to three discovery

requests he states were served on defendants. In particular, plaintiff references the following

discovery requests: (1) request for production of documents; (2) request for admissions; and (3)

interrogatories. Plaintiff states that he has been prevented from pursuing discovery due to the

“on-going harassment and interference” by prison officials. Given this assertion, it appears that

this filing is not a motion to compel discovery responses, but is a continuation of plaintiff’s series

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 192 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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

To the extent plaintiff does seek an order compelling discovery responses, the 2

request would be denied because all the discovery at issue was served on defendants after the

discovery cut-off date established in the court’s April 19, 2007, order, which required that

discovery responses be served no later than 60 days prior to August 17, 2007. 

4

of filings seeking injunctive relief. Again, plaintiff does not mention any individuals who are 2

defendants to this action. 

7. “Notice of Mail Theft and Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief” (Doc.

177). Plaintiff repeats many of his previous allegations concerning interference with legal mail,

food tampering, and harassment. Again, plaintiff does not mention any defendants to this action,

but refers to “prison officials” and “correctional officers.” 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a requests for injunctive relief against individuals who are not

named as defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who

are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). The requests must, therefore, be denied. 

Further, plaintiff complains of conduct by prison officials at California State

Prison – Sacramento (where he was previously housed) and California State Prison – Corcoran

(where he is currently housed). Plaintiff’s transfer to California State Prison – Corcoran renders

plaintiff claims against officials at California State Prison – Sacramento moot. Where a prisoner

is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to

another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an

expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Here, there is no allegation

of an expectation that plaintiff will be transferred back to California State Prison – Sacramento. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 192 Filed 12/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Finally, to the extent plaintiff is litigating claims relating to interference with legal

mail, food tampering, and/or harassment – none of which are part of this action – in other

actions, plaintiff’s motions are more appropriately considered in the context of those other

actions. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motions for

injunctive relief (Docs. 139, 140, 141, 146, 148, 149, 152, and 177) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 18, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 192 Filed 12/19/07 Page 5 of 5