Gonzalez v. Tumacder

Background

Eric L. Gonzalez filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed it under the required preliminary screening process for a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a government officer. The opinion states that Gonzalez proceeded without a lawyer.

Gonzalez alleged that on January 9, 2024, Sean Tumacder, a unit captain at CTF-Soledad, denied his request to participate in the Family Visiting Program. Gonzalez alleged that this prevented him from privately worshipping with family members and others who could participate in the program.

Gonzalez also alleged that Tumacder denied his request to lower his custody restrictions even though the parole board had recommended lowering them. He alleged that Tumacder also denied him an opportunity to present evidence supporting the request.

Screening Ruling

The court concluded that Gonzalez stated a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law protecting religious exercise by people in certain institutional settings, based on the denial of family visiting. The court also concluded that he stated a Due Process Clause claim based on the denial of his request to lower custody restrictions and the alleged denial of an opportunity to present evidence. These claims were allowed to proceed against Tumacder.

The court dismissed with prejudice all other claims and defendants. It dismissed with prejudice Gonzalez’s claims against J. Moeckly, a grievance reviewer, and Jeff Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based on their alleged handling of grievances. The court also dismissed with prejudice Gonzalez’s claims against Macomber concerning authorization of regulations affecting family visits and the opportunity to present evidence. The court stated that the allegations challenged Tumacder’s application of the regulations to Gonzalez, rather than establishing a basis to challenge the regulations themselves.

Service and Further Proceedings

The court ordered service of the complaint and its attachments on Tumacder. It directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide information about waiver of service and directed the clerk to arrange service through the United States Marshals Service for any defendant who did not waive service.

The court ordered Tumacder to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims by June 2, 2025. If Tumacder sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court required that issue to be raised through a summary-judgment motion. The court set deadlines for Gonzalez’s opposition and Tumacder’s reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also directed that any summary-judgment motion served on Gonzalez include a notice explaining how to oppose the motion. Judge Rita F. Lin reminded Gonzalez that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders.