Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00412-7/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

WILLY CARL LYONS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-0412 LKK KJM P

vs.

D. BAUGHMAN, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is currently set for a trial confirmation hearing by videoconferencing

on April 10, 2006 and for jury trial on June 20, 2006.

On March 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings until his

motion for relief from judgment is adjudicated. Defendant has not filed a response.

In his motion from judgment, plaintiff argues that the judgment is invalid under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) because he was incompetent during the summary judgment proceedings as

the result of his regime of psychotropic medications. He alleges the court was required to hold a

hearing to determine his competence to proceed. Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1120 (9th

Cir. 1989).

/////

Case 2:01-cv-00412-LKK -KJM Document 105 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Even if plaintiff had submitted the documents he now provides about his mental

health in 2004, this documentation would not have raised “a substantial question” about his

competence. Krain, 880 F.2d at 1120. As plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 shows, the mental health officials

treating him rated his organization and association of thought, his intellectual functioning, his

thought quality, and contact with reality to be within normal limits.

To the extent plaintiff otherwise seeks relief from the resolution of the summary

judgment motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), his motion fares no better. Plaintiff argues that the

magistrate judge and this court decided the summary judgment motion incorrectly, but does not

otherwise contend that there is newly discovered evidence which would undercut that resolution

or suggest that mistakes, surprise or excusable neglect had tainted the resolution of the motion. 

The merits of a case are not before the court on a Rule 60(b) motion. Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc.,

363 F.3d 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2004). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 13, 2006 motion for a stay of proceedings is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s March 13, 2006 motion for relief from judgment is denied. 

DATED: March 30, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/lyon0412.17+60

Case 2:01-cv-00412-LKK -KJM Document 105 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2