Wimberly v. Broomfield

Background

Craig Ervin Wimberly, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously dismissed his amended complaint with leave to amend because it did not identify the actions of specific defendants, explain how his rights were violated during the disciplinary process, or address whether the claims were barred by the rules discussed in Heck v. Humphrey and Edwards v. Balisok.

The case was dismissed on March 17, 2025, after Wimberly did not timely file a second amended complaint. On that same day, he filed a motion for an extension. The court granted the motion, Wimberly filed a second amended complaint, and the court reopened the case to screen that complaint.

Screening standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, courts must screen complaints in which prisoners seek relief from governmental entities or officers. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must contain enough factual allegations to state a plausible claim.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under state authority. The plaintiff must also connect each defendant’s actions to the alleged violation.

Allegations and analysis

The second amended complaint alleged that two defendants violated prison procedures by failing to photograph suspected contraband. It also alleged that another defendant said the search was random but had brought a screwdriver used to open a light box in Wimberly’s cell. Wimberly argued that the defendant’s preparation showed that the search was not random. He also alleged that other prison procedures were not followed, but did not provide more information about which procedural protections were violated.

The court explained that prisoners have due-process protections in disciplinary proceedings. Under Wolff v. McDonnell, those protections include written notice of the charges, at least 24 hours to prepare for the hearing, a written explanation of the evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action, a limited ability to call witnesses, and legal assistance when the prisoner is illiterate or the issues are legally complex.

The court found that the second amended complaint did not state a federal claim. If Wimberly intended to allege violations of the protections identified in Wolff, he needed to describe the defendants’ actions and explain how those actions violated those protections. Because the discipline included loss of time credits, the court also required him to address whether the claims were barred by Heck and Edwards. The court explained that a claim seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment generally requires the conviction or disciplinary finding to have been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question through the specified forms of relief.

The court further held that alleging violations of prison procedures or Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, without alleging a violation of the Constitution or federal law, does not state a claim under § 1983.

Disposition

The case was reopened. The second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Wimberly was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file a third amended complaint containing all claims and factual allegations. The court stated that no further amendments would be allowed and warned that failure to amend within the deadline could result in dismissal of the case. The order also stated that Wimberly was responsible for prosecuting the case and for informing the court of any change of address.