Gomez v. Garcia

Background

Nexis Rene Gomez, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials V. Garcia, S. Pedone, and C. Whitman. The case concerned disciplinary proceedings at the Correctional Training Facility. The operative first amended complaint alleged that the proceedings violated Gomez’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

On December 28, 2021, Garcia searched Gomez’s tablet during an investigation concerning altered tablets. Garcia reported finding a hidden application called “Solid Explorer” and unauthorized movies on the tablet. She issued Gomez a Rules Violation Report charging possession of a wireless device component under California regulations.

At the original hearing, Pedone found Gomez guilty. The resulting discipline included forfeiture of 30 days of credit, a 30-day loss of privileges, and a one-year loss of family visits. Gomez appealed. The Office of Appeals determined that due process had been violated because the wireless-communication portion of the charge was not supported and directed the facility to reissue and rehear the report.

The report was reissued, and Whitman conducted a rehearing on July 22, 2022. Whitman again found Gomez guilty. No additional discipline was imposed; the discipline from the original hearing counted as time served. Gomez sought declaratory and injunctive relief, expungement of the report, return of the tablet or reimbursement for its value, and costs.

Summary-judgment ruling

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Gomez had not been deprived of a protected liberty interest, that he received all required procedures, that some evidence supported the guilty finding, and that they were protected by qualified immunity. Gomez argued that the successful appeal of his original disciplinary finding established a due-process violation and that the prison had failed to provide the relief he requested.

The court held that the loss of 30 days of good-time credits was a deprivation of real substance, so constitutional procedural protections applied. But it found no genuine dispute of material fact that Gomez received the procedures required for prison discipline: written notice of the charges, at least 24 hours to prepare, written explanations of the decisions, opportunities to call witnesses and present evidence, and any required assistance. The court noted that Gomez chose not to call witnesses or present evidence at either hearing.

The court separately applied the “some evidence” standard, which asks whether any evidence in the record could support the disciplinary finding. It found that standard satisfied by the undisputed fact that the tablet was in Gomez’s possession, Garcia’s report that the tablet contained an unauthorized application, and evidence that the application allowed the tablet to function as a memory-storage device and contain unauthorized movies. The court concluded that Gomez’s statement that Garcia was not qualified to investigate did not refute that evidence.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Gomez’s due-process claim. Because it found no constitutional violation, it did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and terminated the motion on the docket.