Lamon v. Foss

Background

Barry Louis Lamon, a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff. He represented himself and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and Lamon filed a signed complaint.

Lamon alleged that, beginning when he arrived at the prison on September 12, 2018, staff and inmates targeted him. His allegations included placement in a flooded cell, food being spiked with unknown substances, mail censorship, retaliation, and threats from other inmates. He identified the defendants as Warden T. Foss, Lieutenant R. Diaz, Sergeant Covarrubius, and Correctional Officers J. Lopez, Kelley, and J. Ramos. He asserted four causes of action: retaliation for filing lawsuits and grievances, failure to protect, claims under California Civil Code sections 52 and 52.1, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Screening and claims

Because the defendants were prison staff, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

First Amendment retaliation. The court held that Lamon did not provide enough facts to support retaliation. His allegation that officials arranged his transfer and immediately began taking adverse actions because of his lawsuits and grievances was speculative and conclusory. The court also noted that his grievance against Officers Kelley, Lopez, and Ramos was filed after the alleged actions involving his property and threats, so those earlier actions could not have been caused by that later grievance. The allegations against Diaz and Covarrubius concerning the grievance and their investigation were also insufficient. The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend.

Failure to protect. The court found that Lamon stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment. Lamon alleged that Lopez, Kelley, and Ramos identified him to other inmates as a “snitch” and thereby encouraged them to harm him. He also alleged that Foss and Diaz moved him to another building in the same yard, and that Diaz and Covarrubius failed to meaningfully investigate while a known threat of serious or potentially fatal injury remained. The court found these allegations sufficient to proceed on the failure-to-protect claim.

State-law claims. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Lamon’s state-law claims. It dismissed the California Bane Act claims based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for failure to state cognizable claims. The court stated that the Eighth Amendment does not create rights that can be exercised or enjoyed for purposes of the Bane Act, and Lamon alleged no facts showing interference with due-process or equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the complaint stated a cognizable failure-to-protect claim and remaining state-law claims as described in the order.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Bane Act claims based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. It dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend and ordered Lamon to file an amended complaint within 28 days if he wished to try to state that claim. He could instead notify the court that he wanted to remove the retaliation claim and proceed only on the failure-to-protect and state-law claims the court found cognizable. If he did not respond as ordered, the case would proceed solely on those cognizable claims without further notice.