Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484-13/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

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Maguass, Talisman, Barda, Cohen, and Osborne 

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “confidential offer to compromise by plaintiff.” In his 

motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have made false accusations that he is suffering from 

suicidial ideations in order for him to be placed in the Acute Care Hospital. 

///

///

///

///

///

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S CONFIDENTIAL 

OFFER TO COMPROMISE AND/OR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 87]

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 89 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states:

Evidence of the following is not admissible—on behalf of any party—either to prove or 

disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior 

inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

(1) Furnishing, promising or offering—or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to 

accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the 

claim; and 

(2) Conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim—except 

when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public 

office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority. 

Plaintiff is attempting to use Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as an attempt to 

prove defendant’s liability. Plaintiff cannot use Rule 408 as a “sword” in an attempt to prove 

his claims are meritorious.

 Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction against 

Defendants, his request must be denied. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 

never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 

(2008). For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. 

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 

F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under threat of 

suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and 

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of 

the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the 

injury. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

 Moreover, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, which provides in relevant part, Aprospective relief in any civil action with respect to 

prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal 

right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective 

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 89 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

27

28

relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.@ 18 U.S.C. ‘ 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 

an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. V. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 

U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy 

before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further 

limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the 

Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.”

 In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of 

irreparable harm, a balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. The 

allegations in the instant motion relate to past incidents by Defendants prior to and placement in the 

Acute Care Hospital while he was housed at Corcoran State Prison, and therefore Plaintiff does not 

have standing for a preliminary injunction. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. 

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 89 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 89 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 4