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 had previously dismissed his second amended complaint while allowing another amendment. Wimberly then filed a third amended complaint.

The allegations concerned a January 18, 2023 search of Wimberly’s cell and two disciplinary reports for possessing a cell-phone charging cord and homemade alcohol. Wimberly was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and received a 30-day loss of time credits and loss of privileges. He alleged that the search was not random, that prison procedures were not followed, and that he was not allowed to question witnesses or receive staff assistance at the hearing.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by a person acting under state authority. It also explained that prisoner disciplinary proceedings must provide certain minimum protections, including notice of the charges, an opportunity to call witnesses when appropriate, and assistance when the prisoner is unable to understand legally complex issues.

The court found that the third amended complaint had the same problems as the earlier complaints. Wimberly did not identify the defendants who were responsible for the alleged hearing violations. To the extent he claimed that defendants violated California prison rules, the court concluded that violating those rules did not itself state a constitutional claim under § 1983.

The court also applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey and Edwards v. Balisok. Under that rule, a prisoner generally cannot obtain damages or injunctive relief through a § 1983 action when success would necessarily call into question the validity of a disciplinary finding that resulted in loss of time credits, unless that finding has first been reversed or expunged. The court concluded that Wimberly’s claims were barred because success would call the disciplinary finding’s validity into question.

Disposition

The court held that Wimberly had failed to state a federal claim after multiple opportunities to amend and that further amendment would be futile. It dismissed the action without leave to amend. The court expressly stated that the dismissal was without prejudice, but that Wimberly could bring this civil-rights action only if the disciplinary finding were reversed or expunged. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.