Lomack v. Beam
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02943
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lomack v. Beam, Judge Chen allowed a safety claim against three officers to proceed, dismissed the other claims and defendants, and set deadlines.
Kenneth Lomack’s remaining Section 1983 claim against C/O Smith, C/O Waterman, and correctional sergeant E. Beam proceeds. The claims and defendants for which no claim was stated were dismissed, and the order set procedures for continuing the case.
What happened
Lomack v. Beam concerns Kenneth Lomack’s claim that correctional staff were deliberately indifferent to his safety. The court found that the complaint stated a claim against C/O Smith, C/O Waterman, and correctional sergeant E. Beam, but not against the other named defendants.
Lomack did not file an amended complaint by the deadline the court had provided. The court therefore dismissed all other claims and defendants, ordered service of the complaint on Smith, Waterman, and Beam, and set deadlines for motions and responses.
Judge Chen’s order did not decide whether Lomack will ultimately win. It allowed the one stated claim to move forward and established procedures for service, discovery, and possible summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Lomack v. Beam · No. 3:19-cv-02943
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
The court had previously reviewed Kenneth Lomack’s complaint and determined that, read broadly, it stated a claim under Section 1983 for deliberate indifference to his safety against C/O Smith, C/O Waterman, and correctional sergeant E. Beam. The court also determined that the complaint did not state a claim against psychologist Salvidav, C/O Seveda, C/O Lucio, and C/O Gutierrez. It gave Lomack until October 31, 2019, to file an amended complaint attempting to state claims against those defendants.
The court warned that failing to file an amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the defendants against whom no claim was stated. Lomack did not file an amended complaint, and the deadline passed.
Ruling and Case Management
The court ordered that the complaint stated a cognizable Section 1983 claim against Smith, Waterman, and Beam for deliberate indifference to Lomack’s safety. It dismissed all other claims and defendants. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the remaining claim.
The Clerk was directed to issue summonses, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve Smith, Waterman, and Beam. The court also set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions, including summary judgment: defendants’ motions were due February 14, 2020; Lomack’s opposition was due March 13, 2020; and any reply was due March 27, 2020.
Additional Instructions
The order explained the procedures for opposing summary judgment, including the need to provide evidence rather than rely only on the complaint if defendants properly supported such a motion. It also addressed communications with the court, discovery, keeping the court informed of address changes, prosecuting the case, and identifying the case name and number on filings. Judge ED M. CHEN entered the order on December 10, 2019.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.