Lomack v. Beam

Background

Kenneth Lomack, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court reviewed his complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Lomack alleged that he told correctional officers Waterman and Smith that he feared for his life while living with a cellmate who was manipulating him and causing fear. He also told psychologist J. Salvidav that he feared his cellmate and that the situation was making him depressed. On January 2, 2018, Lomack submitted a prison form to sergeant Beam stating that he and his cellmate were not getting along and that he needed to be moved. Beam refused to separate them. On January 26, 2018, the cellmate knocked Lomack unconscious, causing injuries that required an off-site hospital visit.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials must allege a violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law. Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials must take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners. A failure to protect violates that amendment when the danger is sufficiently serious and the official deliberately ignores a known excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.

Construing the complaint liberally, the court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Smith, Waterman, and Beam.

The court found the allegations against Salvidav insufficient because Lomack did not allege that Salvidav failed to take action after learning about the safety concern. Salvidav also was not listed as a defendant. The court allowed Lomack to amend if he wanted to pursue a claim against Salvidav, requiring him to identify Salvidav as a defendant and allege what Salvidav did or failed to do.

The court also noted that Ceveda, Lucio, and Gutierrez were listed as defendants but were not mentioned in the allegations. It allowed Lomack to try to state claims against them in an amended complaint.

Ruling and Required Next Step

The court dismissed the complaint’s claims against Ceveda, Lucio, Gutierrez, and Salvidav for failure to state a claim, while granting leave to amend. It required Lomack to repeat his claims against Waterman, Smith, and Beam because the amended complaint had to provide a complete statement of all claims. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and civil case number from the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. It had to be filed by October 31, 2019. The court stated that defendants against whom no claim was stated in the amended complaint would be dismissed.