×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
New York Prisoner Required to Participate in Drug Treatment Despite His Conviction Being for Murder
New York state prisoner Javier Gomez appealed the 2005 dismissal of his pro se complaint to enjoin the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) from requiring his participation in a drug treatment program. His required participation was affirmed.
Gomez alleged he had completed drug and alcohol classes in 1989 for a 1988 drug conviction, and argued that his current (1993) murder conviction had nothing to do with drugs. Gomez claimed that he had not had a drug or alcohol problem since he finished the 1989 classes. His complaint was denied, and he appealed.
The Third Judicial Department for the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the DOCS “has considerable discretion in determining the program needs of inmates,” and that a rational basis existed to justify the drug treatment program due to Gomez’s past drug conviction. See: In re Gomez v. Goord, 34 A.D.3d 963, 823 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2006).
Gomez alleged he had completed drug and alcohol classes in 1989 for a 1988 drug conviction, and argued that his current (1993) murder conviction had nothing to do with drugs. Gomez claimed that he had not had a drug or alcohol problem since he finished the 1989 classes. His complaint was denied, and he appealed.
The Third Judicial Department for the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the DOCS “has considerable discretion in determining the program needs of inmates,” and that a rational basis existed to justify the drug treatment program due to Gomez’s past drug conviction. See: In re Gomez v. Goord, 34 A.D.3d 963, 823 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re Gomez v. Goord
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 34 A.D.3d 963, 823 N.Y.S.2d 610 (NYAD 3 Dept 2006) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |