Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02444/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02444-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAMONT LOMACK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 16-02444 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the “CDCR in the official capacity.”1 Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

 

1 The matter was reassigned to this Court on June 3, 2016, after Plaintiff declined 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket Nos. 6 & 9.)

Case 5:16-cv-02444-EJD Document 14 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that on November 24, 2014, he fractured and tore something in his 

hand. (Compl. at 3.) After he received two x-rays at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he 

was previously incarcerated, he was informed that “nothing was wrong.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

managed to see an “outside doctor,” who diagnosed a small tear and fracture. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was given a soft cast, medication, and injections shots, with the prognosis that “it 

might heal properly.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that his injury has not healed, and he has 

disfiguration of his bones along with inflammation. (Id.) Plaintiff complains that he 

suffers from chronic pain and requires physical therapy. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that his 

injuries are due to the “CDC not finding the fracture with first two x-rays.” (Id.) 

 Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en 

banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's 

medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 

F.2d at 1059. 

 A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could 

Case 5:16-cv-02444-EJD Document 14 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). A prison official is 

deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which 

the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must 

also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but 

was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe 

the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). 

 Assuming that Plaintiff had a serious medical need, he still fails to state a deliberate 

indifference claim because he lacks sufficient facts showing the second element, i.e., 

defendant’s response to the need. First of all, Plaintiff fails to identify a specific individual 

as defendant whose actions caused the deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

Naming the “CDCR in the official capacity” is simply insufficient. Furthermore, Plaintiff 

has failed to allege that any defendant knew Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious 

harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 837. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend, to identify specific individuals as 

defendants and allege facts showing that they acted with deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical needs, if he can truthfully do so. 

The Court notes that in identifying the CDCR as a defendant “in the official 

capacity,” Plaintiff also stated “medical neglect.” (Compl. at 2.) However, a claim of 

medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to make out a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004); Hallett v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th 

Cir. 1981); see, e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding no merit 

in claims stemming from alleged delays in administering pain medication, treating broken 

nose and providing replacement crutch, because claims did not amount to more than 

Case 5:16-cv-02444-EJD Document 14 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 Californi

a

negligence); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a 

medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s 8th Amendment rights). 

The facts alleged by Plaintiff only indicate that Defendants acted negligently in 

misdiagnosing his injuries. Accordingly, any such claim will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28) 

days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the 

court’s form complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 16-02444 EJD (PR), and the words 

“AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 

the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended 

complaint supersedes all prior complaints, and Plaintiff may not make references to the 

original complaint. Claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims 

and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 

complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without 

further notice to Plaintiff. 

 The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this 

order to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Other Motions 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\01389Ardds_dwlta 

10/4/2016

Case 5:16-cv-02444-EJD Document 14 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 4