Gomez v. Garcia

Background

Nexis Rene Gomez, a California inmate who had previously been incarcerated at Soledad State Prison, filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer V. Garcia and Lieutenant Steven Pedone. The complaint concerned disciplinary proceedings over allegations that Gomez’s Hiteker tablet had been altered and qualified as a wireless-device component. Garcia searched the tablet, reported finding thumbnail images, and issued a rules-violation report. Pedone later found Gomez guilty based on Garcia’s report and the thumbnail evidence.

Gomez alleged that the guilty finding caused him to receive 30 days on C-status for packages and lose access to electronic devices and other privileges. He also alleged that the first guilty finding was overturned on appeal because of a due-process violation, after which the report was reissued and another hearing was held. The opinion states that the rehearing occurred on July 22, 2002. Gomez challenged Garcia’s qualifications and the reliability and admissibility of her evidence, citing the federal evidence rules and the standard commonly associated with expert testimony. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, dismissal of the rules-violation reports, return of the tablet or payment for its value, and costs.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity or its officers. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right and action by a person acting under state law.

Due-process analysis

The court explained that prison disciplinary proceedings must provide certain protections when the discipline implicates a liberty interest of “real substance.” Under the standard from Sandin v. Conner, that generally means an unusually serious hardship compared with ordinary prison life or an action that will inevitably affect the length of the sentence.

The court held that Gomez’s alleged temporary loss of access to phones, outdoor activities, common areas, packages, and electronics did not amount to an unusually serious hardship. The court also held that Gomez’s allegation that the disciplinary finding could potentially affect a future parole decision was insufficient because it did not show that the finding would inevitably affect the length of his sentence.

The court further stated that, even assuming the alleged deprivations involved a protected liberty interest, the complaint did not allege that Gomez was denied any of the procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell. Those protections include written notice, time to prepare, a written statement of the evidence and reasons for the decision, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence when consistent with prison safety, and assistance in unusually complex cases.

The court rejected Gomez’s challenge to the quality and admissibility of the evidence. Applying the minimum “some evidence” standard, the court said Garcia’s account supplied evidence supporting the disciplinary board’s conclusions. The court explained that neither the evidentiary standard required for a criminal conviction nor a higher standard based on the federal evidence rules applied to these proceedings.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Gomez was given 28 days from the filing date to submit an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies, including facts showing a deprivation of a liberty interest of real substance and denial of one or more required disciplinary procedures. The order stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that defendants not named in the amended complaint would no longer be defendants. It also ordered that failure to respond as directed would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court stated that Gomez’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.