Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01282-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENEA SCOTT, REGINA BOYCE, and

JULIE HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMPATH SURYADEVARA,

M.D.;SHELLY KRUSE, M.D.;

MUHAMMAD ANWAR, M.D.;

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, a

California Corporation,

Defendants.

1:05-CV-01282 OWW WMW

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFF GENEA SCOTT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Genea Scott (“Scott”) brings this motion for

reconsideration of the court’s December 20, 2006 order dismissing

Defendants Rosanne Campbell, Roderick Hickman, Debra Jacquez,

Gwendolyn Mitchell, Richard Rimmer, Sampath Suryadevara, Peter

Szekrenyi, Jeanne Woodford, (collectively “non medical

Defendants”). (Doc. 51, Order, Filed December 20, 2006.) 

Plaintiffs make their motion on the grounds that the recent

Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2006) is

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 15
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

2

a new development in the law to warrant reconsideration of the

court’s order. Defendants oppose the motion. 

2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2006 the court issued an order dismissing

the non medical CDCR Defendants from Plaintiff’s complaint. 

(Doc. 51, Order.) On January 22, 2007 the Supreme Court of the

United States issued its ruling in Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910

(2007). On February 5, 2007 Plaintiff Scott filed a motion for

reconsideration. (Doc. 56, Motion for Reconsideration.) On

March 23, 2007 Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 67,

Opposition.) On April 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed her reply. (Doc.

68, Reply.) 

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Background

Scott brings the underlying action against various staff of

the Central California Womens’ Facility (“CCWF”) and the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”),

in their official and individual capacities, under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 (2007). (Doc. 17, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Filed

July 17, 2006.) While an inmate at CCWF, Scott suffered from a

medical condition consisting of boils underneath her arms. Scott

was treated for her medical condition by Dr. Muhammad Anwar

(“Anwar”). Scott’s complaint alleges that Anwar’s procedure for

the removal of the boils involved improper and hazardous surgical

procedures which left her disfigured and that Defendants are

collectively responsible for the faulty procedures. 

Prior to filing her complaint, Scott filed three 602

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 15
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

3

administrative appeals relating to her surgeries for removal of

the boils. Throughout her 602 grievances, Scott named several

CCWF medical staff she alleges were responsible for continuing to

refer her and other inmates to Anwar despite knowledge that his

medical treatment involved faulty procedures. Scott did not

specifically refer to or name any of the non medical CDC

Defendants in her 602 grievances. However, Scott did name CCWF

as an entity in her grievances and consistently complained of

CCWF’s “failure to accommodate [sic]... with pain

management...[and failed] totally with ever [sic] other issue

addressed in [her] 602.” (Doc. 68-2, Plaintiff’s Reply, Ex. 1 at

9, Filed April 4, 2007.) 

The non medical CDC Defendants were dismissed by the

December 20, 2006, order based on the Ninth Circuit decision in

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, n. 3 (9th Cir. 2006). In

Vaden, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because Plaintiff failed

to include Defendants in his initial 602 grievance and named them

for the first time in the complaint, “it... appeare[d] that he

failed to exhaust his remedies as to those defendants.” Id. at

n. 3. However, the Ninth Circuit did not fully resolve the

issue, because the Defendants were instead dismissed on the

grounds that Plaintiff filed suit while his 602 complaint was

still pending, evidencing failure to exhaust. Id. at 1051. 

Since the decision in Vaden, the Supreme Court of the United

States has resolved in prisoners’ favor, the issue of whether an

inmate’s failure to name Defendants in a 602 grievance precludes

the inmate from later naming them for the first time in a

complaint. see, Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007). Jones

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 3 of 15
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

4

specifically held that the prison’s grievance requirements not

the Prison Litigation Reform Act define whether there is a

necessity that all persons who are later sued be named in a

grievance. 

The 602 grievance form issued by the CDC does not

specifically require an inmate to individually name all the

parties responsible for the action complained of. The form only

asks that the inmate “Describe Problem” and state what the

“Action Requested” is. 

B. Non Medical CDCR Defendants

Defendant Roderick Hickman (“Hickman”) is the Secretary of

the CDCR, and is sued herein in his individual capacity. 

Defendant Jeanne Woodford (“Woodford”) is the Director of

CDCR and is sued in her individual capacity. 

Defendant Richard Rimmer (“Rimmer”) is the Acting Director

of the CDCR and is sued in his individual capacity. 

Defendant Rosanne Campbell (“Campbell”) is the Deputy

Director of Health Care Services at CDCR and is sued in her

individual capacity. 

Defendant Peter Szekrenyi (“Szekrenyi”) is the Director of

Correctional Health Care Services at CDCR and is sued in his

individual capacity. 

Defendant Debra Jacquez (“Jacquez”) is the acting Warden of

the Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”) and is sued in

her individual capacity. 

Defendant Gwendolyn Mitchell (“Mitchell”) is the Warden of

CCWF and is sued in her individual capacity. 

Defendant Sampath Suryadevara, M.D. (“Suryadevara”) is the

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 4 of 15
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

5

Chief Medical Officer of CCWF and is sued in his individual

capacity. 

Scott alleges that the non medical CDCR Defendants are all

responsible for her care and the medical treatment of inmates in

the California prison system, as well as that of other inmates

who were similarly harmed by Dr. Anwar. Scott alleges that

Defendants each had the ability to terminate Anwar’s contract

with the State, yet continued to allow Anwar to operate on CCWF

inmates. Scott claims that the non medical CDCR Defendants

allowed this treatment to continue even though they had knowledge

of Anwar’s history of performing disfiguring surgeries on CCWF

inmates that were not medically necessary. (Doc. 1, Second

Amended Complaint, ¶4-¶12, Filed July 17, 2006.)

4. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court’s power to reconsider an interlocutory order is

recognized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (2007) which states that an

“order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any

time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and

the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” A motion for

reconsideration is appropriate where the district court (1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, (3) if there

was an intervening change in controlling law. See, School

District No. 1j, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A reconsideration motion should not merely

present arguments previously raised, or which could have been

raised in the initial summary judgment motion. See Backlund v.

Barnhart, 778 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). ("The motion was

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 5 of 15
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

 The underlying decision on the merits, United States v. 1

Navarro, 959 F. Supp. 1253 (E.D. Cal. 1997), was reversed by

United States v. Navarro, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1998), cert.

denied 119 S. Ct. 2354, 144 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1999). This reversal

did not affect the district court's denial of reconsideration.

6

properly denied here because . . . it presented no arguments that

had not already been raised in opposition to summary judgment.");

United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal.

1997) ("[M]otions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the 1

unsuccessful party to "rehash" arguments previously presented...

Nor is a motion to reconsider justified on the basis of new

evidence which could have been discovered prior to the court's

ruling....Finally, "after thoughts" or "shifting of ground" do

not constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration.").

5. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Scott moves for reconsideration of the December 20, 2006

order on the ground that there has been an intervening change in

controlling law. The non medical defendants were dismissed

because Scott failed to name them in her 602 administrative

grievance. (Doc. 51, Order Granting in Part Denying in Part

Motions to Dismiss, Filed December 20, 2006.) The court relied

primarily on Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1049 n. 3 (9th

Cir. 2006) where the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because

Plaintiff failed to include Defendants in his initial 602

grievance and named them for the first time in the complaint,

“it... appeare[d] that he failed to exhaust his remedies as to

those defendants.” Id. at n. 3. However, the Ninth Circuit

instead, dismissed the Defendants on the grounds that Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 6 of 15
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

7

filed suit while his 602 complaint was still pending. Id. at

1051. 

Since the decision in Vaden, the Supreme Court of the United

States issued its opinion in Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007)

where it resolved the issue of whether an inmate’s failure to

name Defendants in a 602 grievance precludes the inmate from

later naming them for the first time in a complaint. In Jones,

the Sixth Circuit dismissed two separate lawsuits because the

inmate Plaintiffs in each suit had not identified each defendant 

in their initial grievance. Id. at 922. The Court reasoned that

“the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] requires exhaustion of ‘such

administrative remedies as are available...’ but nothing in the

statute imposes a ‘name all defendants’ requirement along the

lines of the Sixth Circuit’s judicially created rule.” Id. In

the Sixth Circuit, the “name all defendants” rule applied even

when the identity of the responsible party was not discovered

until a later step of the grievance process. Id. n. 7. Under

the Sixth Circuit rule, the prisoner had to bring a new grievance

upon learning the identity of the responsible party, in order to

properly exhaust. Id. However, in addressing the issue, the

Court reasoned that nothing in the Michigan Department of

Corrections Policy (“MDOC”) itself “supported the conclusion that

the grievance process was improperly invoked simply because the

individual later named as a defendant was not named as the first

step of the grievance process. Id. at 922. The PLRA does not

impose such a requirement. Id. “The Sixth Circuit rule may

promote early notice to those who might later be sued, but that

has not been thought to be one of the leading purposes of the

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 7 of 15
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

 Non Medical CCWF Defendants are Defendants Suryadevara, 2

Mitchell, and Jacquez. 

8

exhaustion requirement.” Id. at 923. “Exhaustion is not per se

inadequate simply because an individual later sued was not named

in the grievance.” Id. 

i. Non Medical Staff at CCWF

The first issue is whether, under Jones, non medical

Defendants at CCWF were sufficiently on notice of Scott’s 2

complaints even though she did not specifically name these

Defendants in her 602 grievance. Defendants argue that the

holding in Jones does not affect this court’s December 20, 2006

Order because Scott made no grievance or other administrative

charge against any non medical CDCR Defendant. Even if Scott did

not name the non medical CDCR Defendants, Defendants argue Scott

still failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by failing to

implicate non medical CDCR Defendants in any way in her 602

grievance. However, “Compliance with the prison grievance

procedures, is all that is required by the PLRA to ‘properly

exhaust’.” Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 922-923. The level of detail

necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures

will vary from system to system and claim to claim but it is the

prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the

boundaries of proper exhaustion. Id. at 923. 

In this case, the only detail requested by the CDCR 602

grievance form is that the inmate “Describe Problem” and state

what the “Action Requested” is. The 602 grievance form issued by

the CDCR does not specifically require an inmate to individually

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 8 of 15
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

9

name all the parties responsible for the action complained of.

Scott brings a claim for violations of her Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prior to filing her

complaint and in accordance with the PLRA, Scott filed several

602 grievances. In her grievances Scott described the location

of the boil, the two surgeries to remove the boil, the

medications she was prescribed, and the fact that none of this

treatment did anything to cure her problem. She provided the

prison with dates of the surgeries and the times she met with

various doctors. She described a prior grievance and how, though

her grievance was granted, she received a second surgery. She

described how her boil remained in spite of this second surgery. 

She explained in detail the pain she was in, the scarring that

resulted from the surgery, and the numbness and loss of movement

in her arm. Further, she specifically states that “due to

complete incompatin [sic] of the Doctor who was a contract doctor

for CCWF... I have been in extreme pain and now grant the fact

that CCWF has tryed [sic] to accamodate [sic] me with pain

management, they have failed totally with ever [sic] other issue

addressed in my 602.” 

Further, Plaintiffs have presented evidence since the April

16, 2007 hearing on this matter that non medical staff at CCWF

was in fact aware of Plaintiffs’ grievances against Dr. Anwar. 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Suryadevara was repeatedly

warned about Dr. Anwar’s misconduct and offer the rough

deposition transcript of CDCR employee Randy Lewis, R.N in

support of their allegations. (Doc. 74, Notice of New Facts,

Filed May 18, 2007.) Plaintiffs argue the following: 

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 9 of 15
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

10

1. That Mr. Lewis testified that in mid-March 2004 he

notified Suryadevara that Dr. Anwar “threatened”

and attempted to bribe him in an effort to coerce

Lewis to stop questioning his medical bills. 

(Doc. 74, Notice of New Facts, Ex. A, Lewis Depo.,

113:1-17; 61:2-64-3.) 

2. That in September 2004 Lewis sent a letter to

Suryadevara stating that Anwar was performing

unauthorized medical treatments on CDCR inmates. 

(Id. 69:7-70:20.) 

3. Throughout the next several months, Lewis

repeatedly advised Suryadevara about Anwar’s

patient care issues, performance of unauthorized

medical procedures, invented medical procedures,

and inaccurate patient chart notations. (Id. at

66:13-67:19; 68:4-20; 69:7-16; 74:20-76:21; 80:13-

82:11; 89:21-93:11; 103:6-104:17; 111:24-112:10;

115:9-116:8; 141:10-142:16.)

4. Finally in March 2005, Lewis memorialized the

concerns he had verbally presented to Suryadevara

in a written memorandum entitled “Concerns

regarding service of Dr. Anwar M.D.” That memo

concluded that “Dr. Anwar has demonstrated his

willingness to threaten and intimidate employees

for personal gain, but more troublesome is his

willingness to skew medical records to accomplish

this, for possible increased reimbursement of his

services.” (Id. at 98:22-99:9). 

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 10 of 15
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

11

Plaintiffs allege that despite these repeated warnings,

Suryadevara allowed Anwar to engage in debilitating surgeries on

Plaintiffs Holmes and Scott in May and July 2005. Pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) such facts will be taken as true subject

to a dispositive motion. 

Defendants Jacquez, Mitchell, and Suryadevara (collectively

“non medical CCWF Defendants”) are all employed at the CCWF

prison. Scott’s several 602 grievances specifically identify her

dissatisfaction with the prison’s treatment of her medical

condition, alleges injuries that resulted from that treatment,

and establishes a record of her consistent complaints as an

inmate of CCWF. These details in Scott’s 602 grievances are

sufficient to have put them on notice and allow the “prison to

address complaints about the program it administer[ed] before

being subjected to suit.” Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 923. Further,

since there is no evidence that the CDCR procedures or the 602

grievance form make any mention of naming particular officials in

the grievance a rule imposing such an exhaustion prerequisite is

now unwarranted under Jones. see, Id. The Court in Jones

identified the benefits of exhaustion to include allowing a

prison to address complaints about the program it administers

before being subjected to suit, reducing litigation to the extent

complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and improving litigation

that does occur by leading to the preparation of a useful record. 

Id. Under Jones, Scott has sufficiently exhausted her remedies

under the PLRA against Defendants Jacquez, Mitchell, and

Suryadevara. 

Defendants cite several cases that are distinguishable from

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 11 of 15
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

12

Scott’s case. In Davis v. Knowles, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6159

(E.D. January 25, 2007) the Plaintiff merely stated that he was

being denied medical treatment for a broken middle finger. Id.

at *6. The court reasoned that the Plaintiff’s grievance was so

minimal, it failed to bring the actions forming the basis of his

lawsuit to the attention of the correction officials. Id. at *7-

*8. According to the court, “had the Plaintiff grieved the fact

that he was denied access to an orthopedic specialist... and that

he had been transferred to another prison, resulting in the

denial of medical care, administrative remedies might have been

exhausted.” Id. at *8. In contrast, Scott’s complaints are

specific and go beyond a description of her medical condition. 

Scott’s grievance complained of dissatisfaction with the prison’s

treatment of her medical condition, alleged disregard by CCWF of

Anwar’s continued faulty treatment of this medical condition, and

the injuries that she suffered as a result. 

In Mitchell v. Villa, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16358 (S.D. Cal.

2007), the court ruled that Plaintiff’s failure to include in his

602 grievance any allegations of retaliation by prison officials

in violation of his First Amendment rights, as raised in his

complaint, resulted in Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Id. at

*14. Here, Scott brings an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

violation of her Eighth Amendment rights. In her 602 complaints

she consistently complained of her medical condition, pain, and

alleged negligence by Anwar in treating her condition. She

sought relief from the CDCR on more than one occasion, putting

CCWF officials on notice as to her medical condition and the

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 12 of 15
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

 There is evidence of other inmates who also filed 602 3

grievances with CDCR relating to Anwar’s treatment of their

boils. Scott’s complaints, along with the grievances of other

inmates, supports Scott’s contentions that CDCR had knowledge of

Anwar’s faulty procedures and continued to refer inmates to him

despite this knowledge. 

13

alleged incompetent medical treatment by Anwar. This case is 3

different from Mitchell where Plaintiff alleged First Amendment

violations in his complaint but did not complain of any behavior

in his grievance that would amount to a First Amendment

violation. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration as to Defendants

Jacquez, Mitchell, and Suryadevara is GRANTED

ii. Non Medical Staff at CDCR in Sacramento

In Johnson v. Shawnego, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9998 (E.D.

Cal. 2007) on review of Judge O’Neill’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s

claim, this court concluded that Plaintiff’s complete failure to

set forth any misconduct by Defendant Cortez resulted in

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id.

at *7. In Johnson, Judge O’Neill reviewed plaintiff’s inmate

appeal in its entirety and ultimately found that defendants were

entitled to dismissal from the action because plaintiff’s inmate

appeal did not grieve the claims against them. Id. at *5. A

prisoner’s appeal must place prison officials on notice as to the

misconduct complained of. Id. at *7. In considering the entire

record, which included the contents of the appeal and the prison

officials’ response to the appeal, Judge O’Niell’s dismissal was

affirmed upon a finding that plaintiff inmate failed to place

defendants on notice of his grievance in any way. see, Id. 

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 13 of 15
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

14

In this case, Plaintiffs have likewise failed to place

Defendants Hickman, Woodford, Rimmer, Campbell, and Szekrenyi

(collectively “CDCR Defendants”) on notice of their grievances

against Dr. Anwar. Hickman (“Hickman”) is the Secretary of CDCR

in Sacramento. Woodford is the Director of CDCR in Sacramento.

Rimmer is the Acting Director of the CDCR and Campbell is the

Deputy Director of Health Care Services at CDCR. Lastly,

Szekrenyi is the Director of Correctional Health Care Services at

CDCR in Sacramento. Further, while Scott does mention CCWF as

and entity in her 602 grievances, she in no way mentioned CDCR or

any higher ranking medical or executive officials. 

Plaintiffs do not make allegations that the non medical CDCR

Defendants were given an opportunity to investigate their claim. 

Plaintiff’s do not allege these Defendants, who work in

Sacramento, had any notice or awareness of Dr. Anwar or of his

faulty surgery of Plaintiffs at CCWF in Chowchilla, CA. While it

is not necessary that Plaintiff Scott specifically name non

medical CDCR defendants in her complaint, it is necessary that

she show Defendants had an opportunity to address her complaints

about before being subjected to suit. see, Jones, 127 S. Ct. at

923. Plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden. 

Motion for Reconsideration as to non medical CDCR Defendants

Hickman, Woodford, Rimmer, Campbell, and Szekrenyi is DENIED. 

6. CONCLUSION

Scott’s Motion for Reconsideration as to Jacquez, Mitchell,

and Suryadevara is GRANTED. 

Scott’s Motion for Reconsideration as to Defendants Hickman,

Woodford, Rimmer, Campbell, and Szekrenyi is DENIED. 

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 14 of 15
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

15

Scott has sought leave to file a third amended complaint

which reinstates the non medical CDCR Defendants in this lawsuit. 

Leave to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED in accordance

with this decision. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

dd0l0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01282-OWW -GSA Document 76 Filed 07/06/07 Page 15 of 15