Goodwin v. Gomez

Background

Patrick Glen Goodwin, identified as a state prisoner, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. Section 1983 allows a person to sue for an alleged violation of federal rights by someone acting under state authority.

On February 11, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend as to Goodwin’s Eighth Amendment claim against A. Sembijwe for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court told Goodwin that failing to amend within 28 days would result in dismissal of that deficient claim for failure to state a claim, while the other cognizable claims would continue. Goodwin did not file an amended complaint.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court found that it stated an excessive-force claim and a failure-to-protect claim against these sixteen correctional officers:

- A. Gomez - A. Hidalgo - L. Hernandez - M. Brito - J. Rodriguez - R. Carrillo - A. Martinez - P. Morales - P. Morones - G. Gonzalez - L. Maciel - R. Ruiz - B. Rosiles - R. Reyes - J. Perez - V. Mora

The court explained that prisoner complaints must be screened and that claims may be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also stated that claims filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

Ruling and Case Management

The court ordered the clerk to terminate A. Sembijwe from the action because Goodwin had not stated a cognizable deliberate-indifference claim against him. The order did not terminate the action as a whole; the excessive-force and failure-to-protect claims against the sixteen listed defendants will proceed.

The court directed that the remaining defendants be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with formal service through the United States Marshals Service for defendants who do not waive service. Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims, or inform the court if summary judgment is not appropriate. The order set deadlines for Goodwin’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later orders one.

The court also allowed discovery, directed Goodwin to try to identify any John Doe defendants and seek to substitute their proper names within 56 days, and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal of claims against those defendants. Goodwin was also told to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.