Gomez v. Garcia
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-05310
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Gomez v. Garcia, Judge Freeman found a due-process claim sufficient for screening and ordered service, while requiring defendants to file a dispositive motion.
Nexis Rene Gomez and the three named prison-official defendants—V. Garcia, Steven Pedon, and C. Whitman. The case proceeds past initial screening, with service and dispositive-motion deadlines set, but the order does not resolve the underlying due-process claim.
What happened
In Gomez v. Garcia, Nexis Rene Gomez, a California inmate representing himself, sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that disciplinary proceedings over possession of a wireless-device component violated his right to due process.
Gomez said he was found guilty despite insufficient evidence and lost privileges and 30 days of good-time credits. After an appeal, the disciplinary report was reissued and a rehearing again resulted in a guilty finding and loss of 30 days of credits. Gomez said another appeal was granted because of a due-process violation and sought relief including removal of the reports from his file and return or reimbursement for a tablet.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found that the amended complaint stated a claim that could proceed against V. Garcia, Steven Pedon, and C. Whitman. The court ordered those defendants to be served and directed them to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days; the order did not decide the ultimate merits of Gomez’s claims.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Garcia · No. 5:22-cv-05310
- Beth Freeman
- May 31, 2023
Background
Nexis Rene Gomez, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer V. Garcia, Lt. Steven Pedon, and Lt. C. Whitman. He alleged that the defendants violated his due-process rights during disciplinary proceedings concerning a Rules Violation Report for possession of a wireless-device component.
The court had previously dismissed Gomez’s original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Gomez then filed a first amended complaint. He alleged that he was found guilty despite a lack of evidence, lost privileges, and received a 30-day loss of good-time credits. He further alleged that an appeal resulted in the report being reissued and a rehearing being held, after which he was again found guilty and received another 30-day loss of credits. Gomez said a later appeal was granted based on a due-process violation.
Gomez sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including removal of the reports from his file, return of the tablet or reimbursement for its value, and costs.
Screening and claim
Because a prisoner seeks relief from government officials, the court was required to screen the amended complaint. Screening means an initial review to determine whether the pleading states a legally viable claim. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state law.
Construing Gomez’s self-represented pleading liberally, the court found a cognizable due-process claim against Garcia, Pedon, and Whitman. A cognizable claim is one sufficient to proceed past this initial screening stage. The court did not decide whether Gomez will ultimately prove the alleged violations.
Order
The court ordered service of the amended complaint and the order on Garcia, Pedon, and Whitman through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service.
The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims within 91 days after the order was filed. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the required facts are not genuinely disputed. The court also set deadlines for Gomez’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Beth Labson Freeman further directed Gomez to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.