ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, FINDING COGNIZABLE STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, JAMES, RUPP, AND HACKWORTH, FORWARDING PLAINTIFF NECESSARY SERVICE DOCUMENTS AS TO DEFENDANTS JAMES, RUPP, AND HACKWORTH

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

Plaintiff Garrick Harrington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's April 1, 2014, order adopting the Findings and Recommendation issued January 7, 2014, dismissing Plaintiff's constitutional claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant James, and dismissing Plaintiff's state claims against all Defendants. The Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Bautista and Blaylock only.

In the present motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that he stated a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference and state law negligence. As stated in the Court's January 7, 2014, Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference. However, based on the allegations presented in the First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's alleged compliance with the California Tort Claims Act, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for state-law based tort claim of negligence against Defendants Bautista, Blaylock, James, Rupp, and Hackworth, in addition to a claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety against Defendants Bautista and Blaylock. Because Defendants James, Rupp, and Hackworth were not named as Defendants in the Court's January 7, 2014, service order, the Court will hereby forward the necessary service of process documents to Plaintiff for these Defendants to complete and return to the Court for initiation of service of process.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

This is an amended civil rights complaint for declaratory relief and monetary damages brought under deliberate indifference, willful misconduct, grossly negligent violation of the legal rights of plaintiff GARRICK HARRINGTON while he was incarcerated at the California State Prison-Corcoran by defendants J. BAUTISTA, J. BLAYLOCK, S.L. RUPP, B. HACKWORTH, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Correctional Officers at Corcoran at all times described within the complaint; L. JAMES, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Correctional Sergeant in charge of institutional Transportation at all times desctribed within the complaint; and SIX UNKNOWN TRANSPORTATION AND MEDICAL ADMINISTRATORS, employed at Corcoran at all times described within the complaint.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil rights action filed by GARRICK HARRINGTON, a state prisoner, to redress the deprevation under color of state law if rights, privileges and immunities guaranteeed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

2. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's State law tort claims of willful misconduct, gross negligence, deliberate indifference, breach of duty of care, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle in state service causing injuries and damages to plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. This matter has been properly and timely exhausted under all administrative guidelines of 155 CCR § 3084.1 et.seq., and California Government Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 945.6 and 950-950.2, and are in compliance with the California Government Claims Act.

4. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's, action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because events giveing rise to the claims were caused by Correctional Officers employed at Corcoran where the plaintiff's tranportation orginated from and where plaintiff was incarcerated at during all times described within this complaint.

III. PARTIES

6. Plaintiff GARRICK HARRINGTON gas incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran during all events described in the complaint.

7. Defendants J. BAUTISTA, J. BLAYLOCK, S.L. RUPP and B. HACKWORTH were correctional officers employed at CSP-Corcoran at all times relevant to this matter. They are Sided in their individual capacities.

8. Defendant L. JAMES gas a correctional sergeant at CSP-Corcoran responsible for the direct supervision of transportation of inmates to "off-site" medial appointments emanating from the institution at all times., relevant to this lawsuit. He is sued in his individual' capacity.

9. UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS 1, 2, and 3 sere administrators and supervisors of the institutional transportation department at CSP-Corcoran responsible for transportaiton officer safety training and complaince while transporting prisoners and fleet adminstrators responsible for fleet safety/first aid equipemnt in transportation vehicles that sere assigned to the institution. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.

10. UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS 4, 5, and 6 were medical adminstrators responsible for care of prisoners transported to "off-site" medical appointments for surgical and/or other medical procedures. They are sued in thier individsual and offical capacities.

11. All the defendants have acted, and continue to act, under color of state lag at all times relevant to this complaint, and each of them were employees of the Caliofornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. On Friday, September 26, 2008, plaintiff gas removed from his cell at CSP-Corcoran (facility 3A), at approximately 0500 hours, by defendant correctional officers J. BAUTISTA and J. BLAYLOCK, to be transported to an "off-site" medical appointment at the California Pain Institute located in BAkersfield, California (CB & CC clinic).

13. Plaintiff, Rho at the time used an abulatory assitive device (wooden cane), due to a mobility impairment, was placed in "waist chains" pith his hands "shackled" by the two correctional officers

14. PLaintiff gas escoreted by defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK to a corrections transportation van and placed in the large rear compartment of the van.

15. Prior to the plaintiff being ordered to enter the rear of the van, defendnat BAUTISTA had to release and loser a type of "step ladder" prior to opening the security cage of the van's rear area, because the security cage door would not open until the "step ladder" gas lowered fully.

16. Becuase of plaintiff's inability to utilize his hands, an his mobility impairment, defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK had to physically assist plaintiff in climbing the "step ladder" to enter the rear compartment of the vehicle.

17. After plaintiff had entered the rear compartment of the van as directed by the defendants, his legs sere placed in "leg manicles" by defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK.

18. PLaintiff did not see or notice, nor was he offered, a seat belt by either defendant BAUTISTA or BLAYLOCK.

19. After plaintiff's legs sere placed in "manicles" and the rear van compartment security cage door was secured, defendant BAUTISTA entered the vehicle's driver seat and drove to another part of the institution with defendant BLAYLOCK riding in the passenger front seat.

20. Defendant BAUTISTA then drove to another part of the prison and met with defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH who were transporting another prisoner to the same "off-site" medical facility in a different van.

21. After travelling to the "off-site" location of the medical appoinment — California Pain Institute (CB&CC clinic) — defendant "backed" the vehicle into a parking stall in the CB&CC clininc's parking lot.

22. The other vehicle driven. by defendant RUPP with defendant HACKWORTH in the passenger side front seat parked directly next to the van that plaintiff was transported to the medical facility in.

23. After the vehicle that plaintiff was transported in was stopped and defendant BAUTISTA attempted to lower the "step ladder' to open the security cage door, it was noticed that the door would not open becuase the rear of the vehicle was overhanging the sidewalk curb which would not allow for the "step ladder" to lower fully.

24. Defendant BAUTISTA pulled the vehicle forward until defendant BLAYLOCK told him that the rear of the vehicle was clear of the sidewalk curb so the the "step ladder" could be fully lowered and the security cage door opened.

25. After plaintiff gas removed from the rear compartment of the van defendant BAUTISTA re-entered the driver seat and backed the vehicle fully into the parking stall while defendant's BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH stood with the plaintiff and the other prisoner who was transported to the "off-site" medical facility.

26. PLaintiff noticed that the other prisoner who had been brought to the "off-site" medical facility in the other van had been placed in a forward middle compartment of the van that defendant RUPP was driving that was accessible through, the middle side doors of the vehicle.

27. At this point while plaintiff was standing with defendants BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH, plaitiff specifically asked defendnat BLAYLOCK if he could be placed in the middle compartment of the van he was transported in when returning to Corcoran at the conclusion of the medical treatment.

28.(Plaintiff was not given a definitive answer but instead told "I'd imagine so, 7 by defendant BLAYLOCK while both defendnts RUPP and HACKWORTH remained silent.

29. During the medical appointment plaintiff was seen by Dr. A. Palencia, who placed plaintiff under anesthesia until unconscious and gave plaintiff injections in his lower back and spine — facette joints and SI/L5.

30. Plaintiff woke up in a recovery bed at the medical facility with defendants BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH present.

31. While plaintiff was lying in the recovery bed area defendant BAUTISTA described how when he saw Dr. Palencia insert an a, needle that was about five inches long into the plaintiff's back area and he did not flinch or even move he knew plaintiff was "out".

32. After approximately fifteen minutes plaintiff was escorted back to the transport van by defendants BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH along with the other prisoner who was transported to the medicalfacility in the other transport van.

33. Plaintiff was still under the effects of the anesthesia and had to be physically guided back to the van by the escorting correction officer defendants.

34. After arriving at the transport van plaintiff asked defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK to be placed in the middle forward compartment of the transport van but was told no by defendant BAUTISTA and that plaintiff would be once again placed in the larger rear compartment of the transport van.

35. In order to place plaintiff in the rear compartment defendant BAUTISTA had to once again pull the van forward to clear the sidewalk curb so that the "step ladder" leading to the rear compartment of the transport van could be lowered fully and allow the security cage door to open.

36. While the van was being pulled forward, defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH were asked to stand "security" over plaintiff along with defendant BLAYLOCK by defendant BAUTISTA.

37. Defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH obliged the request of BAUTISTA after they had secured the other prisoner transported in the other van.

38. Plaintiff spoke to defendant BLAYLOCK stating that he thought that he would be placed in the middle forward compartment and expressed that he woudl rather be placed in that compartment but was ignored by defendant BLAYLOCK.

39. After the van was moved forward far enough for the "step ladder" to be fully lowered and the security cage door opened defendant BAUTISTA exited the van and came to the back of the van where the plaintiff and defendnats BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH were waiting.

40. Defendant BAUTISTA was specifically asked by plaintiff if he could be placed in the forward middle compartment of the van but was told that he would again be placed in the large rear compartment of the van.

41. After was helped into the van's rear compartment by defendant BAUTISTA plaintiff's legs were placed in shackles while defendants BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HAKWORTH looked on.

42. Plaintiff was not offered a seat belt nor was he seat belted in by defndant BAUTISTA.

43. The defendants then entered their respective vehicles and left the parking lot while heading back to Corcoran.

44. When travelling back to Corcoran defendant BAUTISTA turned to enter the highway "on-ramp" (Highway 99) while "gunning" the van's accelerator.

45. As the van made the right turn entering the ramp at the high rate of acceleration plaintiff was thrown inot the air and slammed the left side of his head against the solid steel base of the opposite facing side bench seat in the rear compartment of the van.

46. Plaintiff laid on the floor of the van with serious pain in the left side front of his head and noticed that he was now bleeding profusely from that area of his head.

47. Plaintiff is unsure whether or not he lost consciousness but began to try to yell "man down!" while attempting to hit the forward rear compartment wall of the van to get the attention of one of the defendnats who were operating the van.

48. When dnefendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK noticed that plaintiff was hurt the van was stopped and the rear doors opened with plaintiff, lying face down with bllod coming out of the wound he had just suffered on the front left side of his head.

49. Plaintiff was asked if he was okay by defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK to which plaintiff answered "no!" and showed the two defendants a hand full of fresh blood that he had wiped from his face.

50. Defendant BAUTISTA physically picked up plaintiff and sat him on the bench seat in the rear compartment of the van .

51. Defendant BAUTISTA then forced his hand and arm into the "crease" between the bench seat's back cushion and seat cushion and retrieved a seat belt mechanism that had not been previously visible prior to that time.

52. Plaintiff was placed in the "seat belt" by defendant BAUTISTA while his head wound was still bleeding profusely.

53. It was at this point that defendant BLAYLOCK gave plaintiff a napkin that had been wetted with liquid from a drink from her lunch to wipe the blood that was streaming down plaintiff's face.

54. Defendant RUPP then stated that the transportation vans were just placed in service and did not have first aid kit installed in them.

54. During the ensuing time period defendant BAUTISTA had walked away from the vicinity of the rear of the van with what appeared to be a cell phone to his ear.

55. When defendant BAUTISTA returned he stated that the Sergeant directed him to return plaintiff to the institution and not take him to a nearby hospital for emergency treatment.

56. Defendant BAUTISTA then closed the rear compartment door of the van and entered the driver's compartment.

57. Ater the vehicle began to move and had traveled for roughly two minutes, the van came toa stop.

58. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK cmae to the rear compartment of the van and then removed plaintiff from the van and began to escort him toward the front of the van.

59. Plaintiff was told that the defendants were now going to place him in the front middle compartment of the van that was accesible through the middle side doors of the van.

60. While being escorted by the defendants toward the middle van doors plaintiff collapsed due to dizness and was helped to his feet by the defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK.

61. Plaintiff was told to step up into the forward middle section of the van through the van side doors.

62. Plaintiff once again collapsed due to diziness complaining of head pain.

63. Plaintiff was assisited to his feet again by defendants and was asked by defendant BLAYLOCK if "he was going to make

64. Plaintiff replied that he "didn't know." but continued to state that he had now developed a serious headache.

65. Plaintiff's complaint of head pain went unresponded to while defendant BAUTISTA placed a seat belt on plaintiff, secured the van side doors, and returned to the driver's compartment.

66. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK then proceeded to drive for approximately one hour and forty-five minutes back to Corcoran while plaintiff's head continued to bleed and his head pain intensified.

67. Plaintiff was taken to the prison hospital (John D. Klarich Memorial Hospital (JDKMH)) where he was examined by a Dr. Sanchez, who sutured the one and one half inch gash on plaintiff's head and ordered a full set of skull x-rays.

68. Plaintiff was not given a "video-taped" interview in accordance with departmental guidelines when an incident occurs during the transportation of inmates.

69. Plaintiff was not placed under any observation in accordance with normal tretment after head trauma.

70. Plaintiff was returned to the transportation van by defendants BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH, and was taken back to the Central Control gate entering the 3A facility complex where he was then taken back to his cell by wheelchair with a "wrap" on his head over the sutured wound.

71. Plaintff suffered "double vision" and severe headaches for weeks following the incident and was returned to the JDKMH prison hospital three days after the incident because continued "double vision", dizziness, and severe headaches.

72. The 3A facility Registered Nurse (Shellburn) ststed at that time that she was noting that I had suffered a concussion in her log and that she felt that I may be suffering from post-concussion issues.

73. Currently, plaintiff has had continuing problems with the vision in his left eye ("seeing floaters") and was under the care of the Corcoran Opthamologist (Sofinski) until plaintff was moved from Corcoran to the institution of his current location.

73. Pursuant to the prison procedure plaintiff filed an appeal contending staff misconduct to which there was an inquiry finding that defendants had violated departmental policy.

74. Due to the regulations regarding "Staff Misconduct", plaintff was not allowed to discover the nature of the affirmed misconduct.

75. Plaintff exhausted his appeal issues concerning the incident through the Vicitm's Compensation and Givernment Claims Board.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. § 1983, 8th Amendment to U.S. Constitution, California Constitution, Article I, section 24.) (Plaintiff v. BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK)

76. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75, inclusive are hereby incorporated by reference.

77. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK violated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution by their deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's right to personal safety

78. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK violated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintff by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 24 of the Caliornia Constitution by willful' misconduct in violating the Federal and State seat belt laws and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's internal departmental policy which was plainly a serious risk of hazard to plaintiff in violaiton of his rights.

79. Defendant's wrongful actions alleged herein are in violation c 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they have deprived plaintiff of rights, benefits; and priviliges secured by the United States and Californ California Constitutions.

80. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK knew or should have known that their conduct, attitudes and actions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm to plaintiff.

81. The actions and conduct of defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK demonstrate deliberate indifference to plaintiff's Eigth Amendment under the United States Constitution and rights under Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution.

82. Defendants BUATISTA and BLAYLOCK acted under color of state law.

83. As proximate result of the defendants' violation of plaintiff's right to free from cruel and unusual punishment while he was at Corcoran, plaintiff suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

84. As a direct and forseeable result of defendants' violations of the Eighth Amendment and Article I, section 24, plaitniff has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer physical injury in the form of problems with the sight in his left eye, headahces, and an unsightly scar on the left side of his head.

85. As a direct and foreseeable result of the defendants' violation of the Eighth Amendment and Article I, section 24, plaitniff has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injuries from pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental distress, and other injuries.

86. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendants concerning their rights, priviliges, and obligations.

87. Defendants BAUTISTA'S and BLAYLOCK'S acts were willful, intentional, and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights, entitling plaintiff to an award of exemplary dmamges.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (42 T.S.C. § 1983, 8th Amendment to U.S. Constitution; Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution) (Plaintiff v. L. James)

88. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 87, pre hereby incorporated by reference.

89. Defendant L. JAMES violated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitutionand Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution by his denial of access to emergency medical attention.

90. Defendant JAMES violated plaintiff's right to be free from creul and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution by his denial of access to medical personnel qualified to exercise proper emergency medical judgment concerning plaintiff's head injury, probable concussion, and real possibility of skull fracture or other serious complication from the head trauma suffered by plaintiff during transport.

91. Defendant's wrongful actions alleged herein are in vioaltion of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they have deprived' plaintiff of rights, bebefits, and privileges secured by the United States and California Constitutions.

92. Defendant JAMES acted under color of state law.

93. Defendant JAMES knew or should have known that his conduct and actions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm to plaintiff.

94. The actions and conduct of the defendant demonstrate deliberate indifference to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution amd rights under Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution,

95. Defendant's acts were willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights entitling plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (42 U.S.C. § 1983, 8th Amendment to U.S. Constitution; Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution) (Plaintiff v. RUPP and HACKWORTH)

96. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 95, inclusive are hereby incorporated by reference.

97. Defendants S.L. RUPP and B. HACKWORTH vilated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment of the UNited States Constitution and Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution by the non-acitons in overlooking misconduct of defdndant BAUTISTA of not placing a seat belt on anesthetized plaintiff and assuring the personal safety of plaintiff while other denfendants violated the plaintiff's rights willfully.

98. Defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH violated plaintif's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintif by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article section 24 of the California Constitution by failing to protect the plaintiff's right to personal safety when they were aware with their personal knowledge that fellow transportation team members, defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK, were willfully engaging in conduct and actions which were plainly a serious risk of hazard to plaintif in violation of his rights.

99. These defendants' wrongful inactions alleged herein are in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they deprived plaintiff of hi rights, benefits, and privileges secured by the United States and CaliforniaoConstitutions.

100. Defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH acted under color of state law.

101. Defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH knew or should have known that their conduct, attitudes of endorsement and indifference, and non-action directly violating their Departmental Code of Conduct assisted in creating an unreasonable risk of serious harm to plaintiff.

102. The non-action of defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH are indicative of conduct demonstrating deliberate indifference tot he plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and rights under Article I, section 24 of the CaliforniaaConstitution.

103. As proximate result of these defendants' violation of the plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment while he was at Corcoran, plaintiff suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

104. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and these defendants concerning their rights, privileges, and obligations.

105. Defendants RUPP'S and HACKWORTH'S non-actions in violation of their Departmental Code of Conduct were willful, intentional, and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights, entitling plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages.

STATE CLAIMS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — Deliberate Indifference o (Article I, section 24 of California Constitution) (Plaintiff BAUTISTA, Blaylock, Rupp, and Hackworth)

106. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 105 inclusive are hereby incorporated by reference.

107. Defendants J. BAUTISTA, J. BLAYLOCK, StL. RUPP, and B. HACKWORTH violated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed to the plaintiff by Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution by the actions of violating state and federal law in failing to guarantee plaintiff's personal safety during transport and other violations of law against plaintiff.

108. Defendants BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH acted under color of state law.

109. Defendants BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH knew, or should have known that their actions, or non-actions, conduct, attitudes of endorsement and indifference to violation of plaintiff's personal safety rights created an unreasonable risk Of serius harm to plaintiff.

110. The actions, or non-actions, of defendants BAUTISTA, BLAYLOCK, RUPP, and HACKWORTH demonstrate deliberate indifference to plaintiff's state law rights"under Article I, section 24 of the California Constitution.

111. As a proximate result of the defendants' violation of the plaintiff's right to br free from cruel and unusual punishment while he was at Corcoran, plaintiff suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

112. Defendants BAUTISTA'S, BLAYLOCK'S, RUPP'S, and HACKWORTH'Sacts, or non-acts, were willful, intentional, and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights, entitling plaintff to an award of exemplary damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — Motor Vehicle (Plaintiff v. BAUTISTA And BLAYLOCK)

113. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 112, inclusive are hereby incorporated by reference.

114. Defendants J. BAUTISTA, J. BLAYLOCK, violated plaintiff's right by negligent operation of the motor vehicle in which plaintiff's injuries were suffered.

115. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK wer negligent in not securing shackled plaintff in a seat belt and these acts were proximate cause plaintiff's injuries and damages to plaintiff.

116. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK were (1) employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (2) agents of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and, (3) were entrusted for the Safe operations of the motor vehicle in their service for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and are therefore liable for plaintiff's safety during the transport of plaintiff in the scope of their duties.

117. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK acted in violation of the plaintiff's safety "rights and their acts were intentional, willful, and purposeful disregard for plaintiff's rights, entitling plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages:

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — General Negligence (Plaintiff v. RUPP and HACKWORTH)

118. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 117, inclusive are hereby incorporated by reference.

119. Defendants S.L RUPP and B. HACWORTH violated plaintiff's rights by their respective non-actions in awareness of their transportation team members, defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK, purposefully violating plaintiff's guaranteed to personal safety in direct violation of the Departmental regulations concerning the reporting of, or prevention of misconduct by fellow Departmental employees.

120. Defendants RUPP'S and HACKWORTH'S intentional non-action and passive endorsement of plaintiff's rights being violated were negligently causal of damages to plaintiff.

121. Defendants RUPP and HACKWORTH acted under color of state law.

122. Defendants RUPP'S and HACKWORTH'S knowing non-actions were negligent in their duties as Correcitonal officers employed in the transportation of plaintiff who was a state prisoner under their card at the time of the incident.

123. Defendants' omissions to act in accordance with their `Code of Conduct' directives concerning witnessed misconduct were in violation of plaintiff's rights to personal safety and were willful, intentional, and purposeful disregard for plaintiff's rights, entitling plaintiff to exemplary damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION — Intentional Tort (Willful Misconduct) (Plaintiff v. BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK)

124. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 123, inclusive are hereby incorporated by reference.

125. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK violated plaintiff's rights to personal safety by committing willful misconduct in the performance as Correctional Officers assigned to transportation in service of the Department of Correcitons and Rehabilitation.

126. Defendants BAUTISTA and BLAYLOCK committed willful misconduct in violating established departmental policy and the duty of care associated with transporting plaintiff, a state prisoner, to and from an off-site medical appointment from Corcoran.

127. Defendants BAUTISTA'S and BLAYLOCK'S omissions to act in placing plaintif, who was shackled hands and legs and could not place a seat belt on himself, in any seat belt or other safety restraining device was intentional, willul, and purposeful disregard of plaintiff's rights, entitling plaintiff to exemplary damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION — General Negligence (Plaintiff v. L. James)

128. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 through 127, inclusive

129. Defendant L. JAMES violated plaintiff's right in unreasonably delaying plaintiff access to emergency medical attention of medical personnel qualified to exercise judgment concerning the head injury suffered by plaintiff"in the transportation incident described"above

130. Defendant JAMES lacked medical qualifications and training nor did he have knowledge of the essential facts to make decision to have plaintiff transported for over one and one-half hours without emergency medical attention after suffering a head injury in the incident described above.

131. Defendant JAMES intentionally violated Departmental policy concerning documentation of prisoner injuries suffered during departmental transportation as described to plaintiff by a Correctional Captain during an interview after the incident in the response to a `misconduct' allegation grievance filed by the plaintiff at Corcoran.

132. Defendant JAMES, as a supervisory officer, directed subordinate officer defendants to circumvent Departmental policy concerning the documentation procedure for prisoner injury incidents during any departmental transportation.

133. Defendant JAMES acted under color of state law.

134. Defendant JAMES negligent acts were intentional, willful, and purposeful disregard for plaintiff's need for immediate emergency medical assessment due to a head injury caused by blunt force in violating his rights, entitling plaintiff to an award of exemplary damages.

135. An"actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning their rights, privileges, and obligations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

136. Where plaintiff respectfully prays for relief as follows: