Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2025

Gathrite v. Dominguez

Judge
Robert Illman
Docket
1:25-cv-02371
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Gathrite v. Dominguez, Judge Illman found Gathrite plausibly stated a mental-health claim and ordered service on three prison officials.

Who this affects

Dee’Angelo Lamar Gathrite and the three defendants ordered served: Sergeant Dominguez and Correctional Officers Busto and Camacho. The order also sets procedural duties for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and deadlines for the parties.

What happened

Gathrite v. Dominguez involves Dee’Angelo Lamar Gathrite, a state prisoner without a lawyer, who sued under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that prison officials placed him alone in a shower during suicide watch, without searching it, and that he found a ten-inch knife made from a can there.

The court found that, when read generously at this early stage, the allegations stated a claim that the officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental-health needs. The court ordered electronic service of the complaint on Sergeant Dominguez and Correctional Officers Busto and Camacho.

Judge Robert M. Illman did not decide the ultimate merits. He set deadlines for the defendants’ motions and Gathrite’s responses, allowed discovery under the federal rules, and warned that failing to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gathrite v. Dominguez · No. 1:25-cv-02371
Judge
Robert Illman
Date
Apr. 21, 2025

Background

Dee’Angelo Lamar Gathrite, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that Defendant Dominguez ordered Defendants Busto and Camacho to place him in a shower while he was on suicide watch, even though he was not suicidal at that time. According to Gathrite, Busto and Camacho did not search the shower or remain with him, and he found a ten-inch knife made from a can that had been left there. He also alleged a long history of self-harm and suicide attempts.

Screening standard

Because Gathrite is a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court was required to conduct an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state authority.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that prison conditions and medical care are subject to the Eighth Amendment. A prisoner may state an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by alleging facts showing that officials disregarded a serious need. The court determined that Gathrite’s allegations, construed liberally at the screening stage, stated claims against Dominguez, Busto, and Camacho for deliberate indifference to his serious mental-health needs.

The order did not determine whether Gathrite will ultimately prove those claims. It found only that the claims could proceed beyond initial screening.

Order and next steps

The court ordered electronic service at Salinas Valley State Prison on Sergeant Dominguez, identified as the D-Facility program sergeant, and Correctional Officers Busto and Camacho, identified as working at the D-Facility EOP building. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must report within 40 days after receiving the service materials which defendants waive service and which do not. The order also describes United States Marshal service for any defendant who does not waive service.

The defendants must file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after service, unless they tell the court that the case cannot be resolved by such a motion. Gathrite must respond within 30 days after a motion is served, and any reply is due within 15 days after the response. Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order. The court also warned Gathrite to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders; failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.