Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00423-14/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

Plaintiff filed a duplicate fourth amended complaint on August 14, 2006. That

1

document has been stricken.

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 and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s fourth

amended complaint (Doc. 113), filed on August 7, 2006. The court now reviews to determine 1

whether the fourth amended complaint exceeds the scope of permissible amendment. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 126 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff no longer names Vance, Turner, Pual or Sherbourne as defendants. 2

Plaintiff voluntarily chose not to name these individuals as defendants in the fourth amended

complaint, which supercedes all previous complaints. The Clerk of the Court will, therefore, be

directed to terminate these individuals as defendants. 

2

On July 21, 2006, the court issued an order which, among other things, outlined

the scope of this action in light of the court’s prior orders. Specifically, the court stated:

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, 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.

The court further stated:

Because the fourth amended complaint filed on April 10,

2006, exceeds the scope of permissible amendment, it shall be stricken. 

Plaintiff will be directed to file a new fourth amended complaint, naming

only those defendants currently in the action (i.e., defendants Pliler;

Vance; Hawthorne; Turner; Murphy; Lytle; Loredo; Paul; Scicluna; and

Sherbourne), and alleging no new claims. Consistent with the court’s

prior orders, any unexhausted claims should not be raised. 

Pursuant to the court’s orders, plaintiff has filed a new fourth amended complaint (Doc. 113). 

Plaintiff names the following six individuals as defendants: Pliler; Hawthorne;

Murphy; Lytle; Loredo; Scicluna. Plaintiff states that he has a long and well-documented 2

history of mental health treatment and that he was a participant in the prison “Mental Health

Delivery System.” Plaintiff alleges that, prior to August 14, 2002, defendants Loredo, Murphy,

Lytle, and Scicluna were aware that he was a high risk for suicide attempts. According to

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 126 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

plaintiff, on August 14, 2002:

. . . [Defendant] Scicluna had be involuntarily moved from my

assigned cell . . . to [another cell] solely as a favor for another inmate and,

when I refused to comply, Defendants Lytle, Murphy, and Scicluna had

me physically overwhelmed, shackled hand and foot, and physically

dragged from the housing area and deposited in a security holding cage.

Plaintiff says that he was left in the holding cell for over two hours, with the shackles “applied so

tightly . . . that my hands and feet were swollen and my wrists and ankles were visibly cut and

bleeding.” Plaintiff alleges that he complained to defendants Lytle, Murphy, and Scicluna of

pain caused by the shackles, but that they refused to loosen the restraints and instead “made

racist, derogatory, and threatening comments.” Plaintiff states that, as the pain became worse, be

shouted to defendants Lytle, Murphy, and Scicluna that he needed to see a prison psychologist

because he was feeling suicidal. 

Plaintiff claims that defendant Loredo arrived later in the day and was briefed by

the other defendants that plaintiff had been “trying to get mental health involved all morning.”

Plaintiff states that he was finally escorted back to the cell to which defendant Scicluna

originally wanted him moved. According to plaintiff, while he was being moved he shouted that

he was going to kill himself and that defendant Murphy responded: “Go ahead. Do us the

fucking favor.” Plaintiff states that defendant Loredo responded: “That’s just gonna get you

dead. It still won’t get your cell back.” 

Plaintiff states that there was no legitimate penological reason to justify the “nonnecessary cell-change.” He also states that “Defendants Murphy, Lytle, Loredo, and Scicluna

denied me access to doctor-prescribed and readily-available mental health and medical services

by refusing to call a doctor(s).” Plaintiff states that defendants acted despite their knowledge

that he was a high risk for suicide attempts. Plaintiff alleges the following injuries caused by

defendants’ conduct: (1) physical injuries to his wrists and ankles caused by the shackles; 

(2) carbon monoxide poisoning resulting in headaches; (3) minor burns; (4) loss of personal

property caused by the cell change; (5) mental decompensation and stress; and (6) loss of

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 126 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

constitutional rights. As to legal claims, plaintiff specifically states that defendants Lytle,

Murphy, Loredo, and Scicluna “caused unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and physical

injury. . .” and asserts a claim against these defendants under the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff also claims that he was denied a religious diet. Specifically, plaintiff

alleges that defendants Pliler and Hawthorne were implementing a policy to deny “any kind of

diet modifications based on religious need.” Plaintiff states that he lost more than 50 pounds as a

result of a lack of access to religiously acceptable meals. Based on these facts, plaintiff asserts a

claim against defendants Pliler and Hawthorne under the First Amendment. 

The court finds that these allegations fall within the scope of amendment

permitted by the court’s prior orders. Because the six defendants named in the fourth amended

complaint have all waived service, they will be directed to file a response. The parties are

reminded that the court’s March 22, 2006, protective order regarding discovery remains in effect. 

Specifically, defendants shall not be required to respond to any discovery requests until after the

court determines that discovery shall be re-opened. Such an order will be issued, at the earliest,

once defendants file an answer to the fourth amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate Vance, Turner, Paul and

Sherbourne as defendants to this action; and

2. Defendants Pliler, Hawthorne, Murphy, Lytle, Loredo, Scicluna shall file

a response to the fourth amended complaint, filed on August 7, 2006, within 30 days of the date

of this order.

DATED: October 18, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00423-AK Document 126 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 4