Gathrite v. Diaz

Background

Dee’Angelo Lamar Gathrite, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it. He then filed an amended complaint.

Gathrite alleged that defendants said they searched his cell and person and found a weapon and a medical syringe. He alleged that he received a Rules Violation Report, was found guilty at a later disciplinary hearing, and lost access to the phone, canteen, and day room for 60 days. He claimed the disciplinary finding was illegal and based on false evidence.

Screening standard

Because Gathrite is a prisoner suing government-related defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state law.

The court explained that prison disciplinary proceedings must provide certain minimum procedures, including written notice of the charges, at least 24 hours to prepare, a written explanation of the evidence and reasons for the decision, the ability to call witnesses when appropriate, and legal assistance in certain circumstances. It also explained that a prisoner generally does not state a § 1983 claim merely by alleging that officials falsely accused him, if the prisoner received constitutionally adequate procedures and no protected liberty interest was affected.

Claims against Covarrubias and Diaz

Gathrite alleged that Defendant Covarrubias found him guilty and Defendant Diaz approved the guilty finding even though there was no hearing and Gathrite was not allowed to challenge the evidence. Construing his allegations liberally, the court held that these allegations stated a claim against Covarrubias and Diaz for violation of his due-process rights.

Claims against Palacios, Weber, and Lizana

The court found that Gathrite still had not stated a claim against Palacios, Weber, or Lizana based on the search that allegedly uncovered the contraband. He did not say whether his actual cell or person was searched, or whether any contraband was found during those searches. The court said this information was needed to determine whether the evidence against him was actually false or whether the officers had simply listed the wrong cell number in an otherwise accurate report.

Ruling and next steps

The court issued an order of dismissal with leave to amend. Within 28 days after the order was filed, Gathrite could either tell the court that he wished to proceed only against Covarrubias and Diaz or file a second amended complaint attempting to state a claim against Palacios, Weber, and Lizana. The second amended complaint had to include all claims he wished to present and could not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal of all defendants except Covarrubias and Diaz. The order also reminded Gathrite that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders.