Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 19, 2022

Travis v. Gomez

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
3:22-cv-04199
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Travis v. Gomez, Judge Gilliam found a prisoner’s excessive-force claim sufficient for screening and ordered five defendants served.

Who this affects

Curtis Travis and the five Salinas Valley State Prison defendants—correctional officers J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, and Muniz, and nurse D. Ramirez. The case proceeds against these defendants for the alleged Eighth Amendment excessive-force violation.

What happened

Curtis Travis, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that correctional officers attacked him while he was handcuffed, wearing a back brace, and using a cane.

Travis said officers J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, and Muniz punched and kicked him until he lost consciousness. He also alleged that nurse D. Ramirez ignored his request for help and walked away. The court found that these allegations stated a possible claim that the defendants used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In Travis v. Gomez, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the five defendants served and allowed the case to proceed. The order also set deadlines for possible defense motions, including a motion for summary judgment, and allowed discovery.

The detailed version

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

Case
Travis v. Gomez · No. 3:22-cv-04199
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Dec. 19, 2022

Background

Curtis Travis, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the required screening process for prisoner lawsuits seeking relief from government entities, officers, or employees.

Travis alleged that on August 22, 2022, correctional officer J. Gomez yelled, “Well kick his asshole head,” while Travis was being escorted to A Yard in handcuffs, wearing a back brace, and walking with a cane. Travis alleged that correctional officers Barnes, Ramerize, and Muniz then punched and kicked him throughout his body. He said that he screamed for help, asked nurse D. Ramirez for help, and was beaten unconscious after Ramirez walked away with Gomez.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that prisoner complaints must be screened and that claims must be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that a civil-rights claim under Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

Construing Travis’s allegations liberally, the court found a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim for excessive use of force against correctional officers J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, and Muniz and against nurse D. Ramirez. The order did not decide whether the alleged attack actually occurred or whether Travis would ultimately prevail.

Order

The court ordered that J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, Muniz, and D. Ramirez be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshals Service service to follow for defendants who did not waive service. The Clerk was ordered to add these defendants to the case caption.

The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another case-ending motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Travis’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, stated that no hearing would be held on the motion, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also gave Travis instructions about serving filings, prosecuting the case, address changes, and extension requests.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.