Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02943/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02943-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LOMACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. BEAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02943-EMC 

SERVICE ORDER

Docket No. 1

On September 20, 2019, the Court reviewed the complaint in this action and determined 

that, liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable claim against C/O Smith, C/O 

Waterman, and correctional sergeant Beam for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety. Docket 

No. 10 at 2. 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, and granted Plaintiff leave to 

file an amended complaint no later than October 31, 2019 to try to state a claim against these 

Defendants. Id. at 2-3. The Court also explained that “[f]ailure to file the amended complaint by 

the deadline will result in the dismissal of defendants against whom a claim is not stated.” Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and the deadline by which to do so has passed. It 

therefore is now time to move forward with the one claim that was stated. 

Accordingly,

1. The complaint, liberally construed, states a cognizable § 1983 claim against C/O 

Smith, C/O Waterman, and correctional sergeant Beam for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s 

safety. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed.

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the documents in the 

Case 3:19-cv-02943-EMC Document 11 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

case file upon the following persons who work at Salinas Valley State Prison:

- ISU correctional officer T. Smith

- ISU correctional officer W. Waterman

- correctional sergeant E. Beam

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for 

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than February 14, 2020, Defendants must file and serve a motion 

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case 

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendants must so inform the Court prior to the date 

the motion is due. If Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, Defendants must provide to 

Plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such a 

motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). 

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later than March 13, 2020. Plaintiff 

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this 

order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and 

served no later than March 27, 2020.

4. Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for 

motions for summary judgment:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by 

which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for 

summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure will, if granted, end your case. . . . Rule 56 tells you what 

you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no 

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute 

about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party 

who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing 

makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by 

declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on 

what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in 

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or 

authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict 

the facts shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and 

show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do 

Case 3:19-cv-02943-EMC Document 11 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if 

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is 

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand 

v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

If Defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 

they are seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if 

a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, 

Plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants’ 

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant’s 

counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to the 

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to the party. 

6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely 

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02943-EMC Document 11 Filed 12/10/19 Page 3 of 3