Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484-4/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO: 1:09-cv-00484-GBC (PC) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

(Doc. 7)

I. Procedural Background

Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff’) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on March 16, 2009. 

Doc. 1. On October 8, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and have Plaintiff the

opportunity to proceed only on cognizable claims or file an amended complaint. Doc. 6. On

November 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. Doc. 7. 

II. Screening

A. Screening Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

1

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 9
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

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“‘Under § 1915A, when determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept

as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.’” Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889. 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Resnick v. Warden

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). “‘Additionally, in general, courts must construe pro se

pleadings liberally.’” Id. A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any

set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Synagogue

v. United States, 482 F.3d 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007); NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896,

898 (9th Cir. 1986). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint in question, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-22

(1969); Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). 

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff is currentlya prisoner at the California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSPC”)inCorcoran

California, and is suing under section 1983 for events which occurred while a prisoner at CSPC. 

Doc. 7.

Plaintiff alleges that prior to February 19, 2008, Defendants were “aware of the existence of

a shadow policy of retaliation, and a code of silence amongst Corcoran’s personnel, under which

[correctional officers] and other staff routinely and systematically retaliate against inmates for

assaulting prison staff, filing grievances, lawsuits or complaints on prison staff . . . .” Doc. 7 at 7. 

According to Plaintiff retaliation takes the form of “unnecessary physical beatings, malicious

property deprivations, sadistic and pain-inflicting food taintings . . . .” Doc. 7 at 7. According to

Plaintiff, Defendants knew under what circumstances a prisoner’s cell would be “given away” and

conspired to orchestrate false mental health accusations and false reports that plaintiff felt suicidal

for the purpose of ensuring that Plaintiff would be hospitalized long enough to lose his cell

2

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 9
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

placement. Doc. 7 at 8, 10-12, 14, 21, 24-25. Plaintiff details that Defendants Barda and Maguass

conspired and gave false reports to have Plaintiff hospitalized and subjected to involuntary drug

treatment. Doc. 7 at 10, 17-18.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda subjected Plaintiff to

“often involuntary treatment with psychiatric drugs to punish us for ‘bringing our problems to [the

Acute Care Hospital (“ACH”)],’ and to . . . deter us from coming back.” Doc. 7 at 8. Plaintiff states

that:

On more than ten (10) occasions prior to February 19, 2008, Ifalsely claimed

to “feel suicidal” so I could get to the ACH. Immediately upon arrival, each time, I

would inform Defendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne [and] Barda . . . that I was not

suicidal and only alleged so as a ruse so I could bring them various declarations,

appeals and other evidentiary documents that supported my claims of being abused. 

Despite my giving them or attempting to give tem such proofs, Defendants . . .

chronically and unfairly refused to even accept any of the witness declarations or

grievancesfiled bymultitudinous other inmates making identical allegations to mines

and, instead, would contribute additional knowingly erroneous “diagnoses” of my

being “delusional,” and only imagining that I was being subjected to the punishment

into my departmental mental health records.

Doc. 7 at 8-9. Plaintiff states that Defendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda knew it was the:

often-employed defensive measure of those inmates being subjected to the

retaliation shadow policy, including the Plaintiff, was for us to complain of nonexistent mental and/or physical illness as to exploit to enter the ACH where we

would malinger for ten or more days in the hopes that our cells would be re-assigned

and we can, in that way, escape from particularlybrutal [correctional officers] in our

housing units.

Doc. 7 at 12.

WheneverPlaintiff pressedDefendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne andBarda to acknowledge

the existence of Plaintiff’s evidence regarding the ongoing abuses in the prison, Defendants would

repeatedly say that their jobs were to only hear about mental health complaints and that they were

tired of Plaintiff discussing issues regarding the prison staff. Doc. 7 at 9. Additionally Defendants

Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda threatened to place Plaintiff on involuntary psychiatric drug

treatment if Plaintiff kept returning to the “ACH.” Doc. 7 at 9. Plaintiff, however, argues that the

“ACH” was the only refuge that he had from “Defendant Maguass and his cronies” who subjected

Plaintiff to various acts of cruel and unusual punishment such as beating Plaintiff while handcuffed,

tainting his meals with “some excruciating-pain-causing chemical” and routinely stealing Plaintiff’s

3

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 9
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

legal papers. Doc. 7 at 9 ¶ 22, 12, 13 ¶ 40. 

When Defendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda prescribed Plaintiff psychiatric

medication for Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Maguass and others were violating his rights,

Plaintiff told Defendants that he would take the medication to prevent more invasive treatment, but

informed Defendants that he was going to file a lawsuit for subjecting him to psychiatricmedication. 

Doc. 7 at 9-10, 12. Plaintiff also warned Defendants Adams, Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda

that the law library correctional officer was violating his right to confidentiality by censoring his

legal activity and circulating extra copies of his legal papers to the prison personnel which included

Defendants. Doc. 7 at 10. Despite the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendants Adams,

Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda conspired and discredited Plaintiff, squelched his grievances

and “implicitly endorsed the shadow policy and its effects against [him] by saddling [him] with a

sham diagnosis of being delusional.” Doc. 7 at 11.

Plaintiff also asserts that he informed Defendant Cohen that he Plaintiff historically takes the

pill form of a medication called “Risperidone” and that he did not want to take the liquid form in fear

that nurses would taint it in retaliation. Doc. 7 at 16. However, Defendant Cohen angrily responded

that Plaintiff would take the medication the easyway of the hard way. Doc. 7 at 16. After Plaintiff’s

repeated refusal, he was strapped down in five-point restraints for four hours and injected with a

large hypodermic needle of a tranquilizer called “Geodone.” Doc. 7 at 16. Plaintiff alleges that

“they . . . falsified reports to allege that I ‘was in danger to myself and refusing treatment.’” Doc.

7 at 16. Based on these false reports, Defendants Cohen and Osborne certified Plaintiff for

temporary involuntary treatment with a powerful anti-psychotic drug called “Zyprexa.” Doc. 7 at

16. Because Defendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda routinely threatened to involuntarily

medicate Plaintiff, Plaintiff reluctantly participated in the mental treatment program and accepted

the medications. Doc. 7 at 16.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda subjected Plaintiff to

a “dangerous and unnecessary course of treatment with psychiatric drugs in retaliation for [his] civil

litigation activities.” Doc. 7 at 18. As a result of Defendants’ actions regarding Plaintiff’s treatment,

Plaintiff argues that Defendants Adams, Talisman, Cohen, Osborne and Barda are responsible for

4

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 4 of 9
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

six months of Plaintiff experiencing: 1) chronic and severe liver and kidney pain; 2) fatigue; 3)

bloating; 4) constipation; 5) chronic blurred vision; 6) medication induced bizarre nightmares; 7)

erectile dysfunction and inability to ejaculate; and 8) mental anguish. Doc. 7 at 19-20.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Maguass and Magana destroyed several hundred dollars

worth of irreparable legal documents, evidence and a television in retaliation for Plaintiff filing an

action against all of the Defendants except Defendant Magana. Doc. 7 at 20-22, 26. At various times

between April 9, 2008, and September 9, 2008, Defendant Maguass repeatedly gave Plaintiff sham

and false responses to Plaintiff’s efforts and formal grievances submitted to regain his property. Doc.

7 at 22. 

Plaintiff alleges that on February 20, 2009, and February 21, 2009, Defendant Maguass

“openly acknowledged awareness of [Plaintiff’s] amendment to the action and incessantly berated

[Plaintiff], calling [him names such as] ‘snitchingmotherfucker,’‘punk-bitch’ and ‘whining bitch.’” 

Doc. 7 at 20-21. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maguass also issued meals to Plaintiff after he

“sadistically reduced the portions, saturated them in liquid detergents and squished the contents into

an offensive, unidentifiable and inedible glob.” Doc. 7 at 21. 

Plaintiff states that On February 25, 2006, Plaintiff committed battery of correctional officer

Fierro for tainting his meals in retaliation for Plaintiff’s history of assault on correctional officers and

civil litigation. Doc. 7 at 22. During April 9, 2008 and September 9, 2008, correctional officers

including Defendant Magana repeated told Plaintiff that they had been to court before implying that

they did not care about any lawsuits that did not care about Plaintiff’s lawsuits against them. Doc.

7 at 22. 

III. Legal Standard and Analysis

A. First Amendment Retaliation

A viable claim for First Amendment retaliation contains five basic elements: (1) an assertion

that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s

protected conduct and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights

(or that the inmate suffered more than minimal harm) and (5) the action did not reasonably advance

a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord 

5

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 5 of 9
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

Nevada Dept. of Corrections v. Greene, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3559955 at *2 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A

viable claim for retaliation requires, in part, that an inmate demonstrate that the prison officials'

adverse action does not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.”). Essentially, in

Plaintiff’s original complaint and amended complaint, he alleges that various defendantsfalselystated

that Plaintiff was threatening suicide so that he could be committed to a hospital for ten or more days

because there is a regulation in place that allows moving prisoners out of their cells if they cease to

occupy the cell for ten or more days. However, Plaintiff clearly states that “[o]n more than ten (10)

occasions prior to February 19, 2008, [he] falsely claimed to “feel suicidal” so [he] could get to the

ACH.” Doc. 7 at 8. Plaintiff further alleges that he lies about being suicidal so that he could bring

declarations and appeals to the hospital staff’s attention. Doc. 7 at 8-9. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants knew that Plaintiff was lying and that lying about physical and mental illness was a means

for inmates (including Plaintiff) to “exploit to enter the ACH” for the very purpose of staying for

more than ten days so that he could get transferred. Doc. 7 at 12.

As with the original complaint, there are no facts in the complaint supporting a retaliation

claim against Defendant Barda for admitting Plaintiff to the hospital. Although Plaintiff alleges

Barda falsely claimed that Plaintiff told him he was suicidal, there is no indication of motive. Even

if based on a false statement by Barda, the mere decision of Barda to admit Plaintiff to the hospital

does not support a retaliation claim. Plaintiff’s admission to repeatedly lying about being suicidal and

asserting that he actually manipulates staff in order to be hospitalized so that he can be transferred

from his cell fundamentally contradicts Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Talisman, Maguass, Cohen,

Osborne and Barda conspired to lie about Plaintiff being suicidal in hopes that Plaintiff would be

moved to a different cell. As alleged, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate that the Defendants 1

actions were because of Plaintiff exercising protected speech, but rather was because of Plaintiff’s

repeated statements that he was suicidal. 

///

Moreover, given that Plaintiff readily had knowledge at the time of filing the original complaint that

1

Plaintiff routinely lies about being suicidal and that his goal is to remain hospitalized so as to transfer from his cell,

Plaintiff could be subject a sanction pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 6 of 9
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

B. Eighth Amendment

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part test

for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by

demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was

deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc)(internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by“a purposeful

act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the

indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). 

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060

(9th Cir. 2004). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities

regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim,” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344

(9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted), and a difference of opinion between medical personnel

regarding treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference, Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242

(9th Cir. 1989). To prevail, Plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was

medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in conscious

disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.

1986) (internal citations omitted). 

Although Plaintiff claims that the psychiatrists, Defendants Cohen and Talisman knew that

Plaintiff did not need psychiatric medication but forced him to have it is contradicted by Plaintiff’s

admission that he repeatedly falsely informs prison staff that he felt suicidal and purposefully

manipulates staff so that he can be hospitalized. The medical staff’s response to Plaintiff’s repeatedly

stating he was suicidal does not amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation and at most is a

difference in medical opinion. Thus Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim stemming

from psychiatric treatment based on Defendants reporting that Plaintiff was suicidal and treating

7

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 7 of 9
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

medical staff acting upon reports of Plaintiff’s mental state.

C. Due Process

Prisoners have a substantial liberty interest, grounded in the Due Process Clause, in avoiding

the involuntaryadministration of antipsychoticmedication. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229

(1990). Plaintiff’s allegations in the original complaint and attachments of the administrative hearing

transcript on the issue of involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication establish that he was

provided with an administrative hearing and that a judgegranted the petition to involuntarilymedicate

him. As a result, Plaintiff ’s allegations do not support a claim that he was deprived of a protected

liberty interest without due process of law. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state any Section 1983

claims upon which relief may be granted against the named Defendants. Under Rule 15(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." 

In addition, "[l]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can

correct the defect." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). 

However, in this action, Plaintiff filed two complaints and received substantial guidance from the

Court in its screening order. Doc. 6. Even after receiving the Court's guidance, Plaintiff failed to

make alterations or to include additional facts to address the noted deficiencies. Moreover, Plaintiff

has admitted to the Court that he has lied on several occasions about being suicidal which undermines

the key underlying premise to his claims that Defendants have falsely stated he was suicidal or have

erroneously treated him for being suicidal. Doc. 7. Because of this, the Court finds that the

deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore orders that

further leave to amend not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

///

8

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 8 of 9
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

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this action be

DISMISSED in its entirety, WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 22, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

9

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/22/11 Page 9 of 9