This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Prisoners' Rights
42 U.S.C. 1983

James Clem v. G. Lomeli

Published: Aug. 21, 2010 | Result Date: Mar. 4, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:05-cv-02129-JAM-CMK Verdict –  Defense

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Karen E. Kreuzkamp

George C. Harris
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

Jacqueline Bos

Somnath Raj Chatterjee


Defendant

Vickie P. Whitney

Rebecca L. Bach


Facts

Plaintiff James Clem was an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison in Amador County on Feb. 3, 2004, where Correctional Officer G. Lomeli engaged in routine cell counts.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Clem claimed that during a routine cell check, he told Lomeli that his cellmate was threatening to kill him and he needed to be moved. Clem contended that Lomeli responded by telling Clem to "deal with it," returning to the cell count. Subsequently, Clem and his cellmate entered into an altercation where he broke Clem's jaw. Clem filed suit against Lomeli, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right for deliberate indifference to a known risk of serious harm.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Lomeli contended that Clem never told him of a threat from his cellmate, but only stated that Clem did not want to be in his cell and wanted to move. Lomeli alleged that Clem had been intoxicated on the day of the incident and had changed his account of the events throughout proceedings.

Damages

Clem sought $90,000 in actual damages as well as $75,000 in punitive damages and costs.

Injuries

Clem sustained a fractured mandible, broken teeth and facial contusions as a result of the fight.

Result

The first trial resulted in a defense verdict which was remanded for retrial on appeal. The second jury also rendered a verdict for the defense.

Deliberation

30 minutes

Length

four days


#112805

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390