Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 213

ORDER Directing Defendants to Respond Re Confidential Inquiry Submission signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 07/17/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ADAMS, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND RE CONFIDENTIAL INQUIRY
SUBMISSION
(ECF No. 212)
TWENTY (20) DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Barry Louis Lamon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is proceeding on the Complaint, filed

18

February 2, 2009, only on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Baer, Valdez, Buenos, Lee, Ponce,

19

and Purvis for excessive use of force and deliberate indifference to a threat to Plaintiff’s safety in

20

violation of the Eighth Amendment and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

21

Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendants Valdez, Lee, Ponce, Purvis, Baer, and Buenos for

22

use of excessive force during an incident when he was laying prone for refusing to get in a wheelchair

23

for transport to the ACH for his medications (ECF No. 1, Compl., && 39-42) and for a cell-change to

24

intentionally house Plaintiff with known rival gang members, subsequent placement on strip cell

25

status, and deprivation of his property for three days (id., at & 51) which was missing a variety of his

26

items when returned to him (id., at && 48-50) all in retaliation for his filing of inmate grievances and

27

civil suits. (ECF No. 111, Re-screening F&R, 6:21-7:3.) Plaintiff is also proceeding against

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Defendants Baer, Valdez, Buenos, Lee, Ponce, and Purvis on a claim of deliberate indifference to his
personal safety under the Eighth Amendment for intentionally housing him with known rival gang
members (Id., at 8:13-16.)
On April 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery responses and for
sanctions (ECF No. 209) which resulted in, among other things, Defendants being ordered to submit
a copy of the Confidential “Appeal Inquiry” to appeal log #08-3268 to the Court for in camera review
(ECF No. 211) with which Defendants timely complied (ECF No. 212).
Upon review, the Court is unable to ascertain any confidential information in the document
and/or any safety/security issues that would arise from its disclosure to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this
order, Defendants are to submit the basis for the confidentiality assertion and the safety/security
objection they raised to Plaintiff's request for production of documents for in camera review.1

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 17, 2013

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
DEAC_Signature-END:

18

icido34h

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Defense counsel is advised that, should they continue to desire to keep this document from being disclosed to
Plaintiff, declarations under penalty of perjury from persons with specific knowledge on these issues are required (i.e. a
mere statement from defense counsel will not suffice).

2