Wimberly v. Cuevas

Background

Craig Ervin Wimberly, a California prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complained about conditions of confinement. The court had dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, and Wimberly filed an amended complaint.

Wimberly alleged that he worked as a porter in a visiting room and reported that Sergeant Cuevas took six photo tickets from a photo box. Wimberly said he was responsible for the box. He alleged that, after the report and a grievance, Cuevas prevented him from working on his days off, encouraged staff to issue disciplinary reports against him, and required him to remain at work until the end of his shift.

Wimberly also alleged that Cuevas made sexually harassing comments for about a year, summoned Wimberly’s visitor to discuss her clothing, and was involved in an attempted investigation under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Wimberly further alleged that correctional officers Didlot, Costello, and Thomas issued rule-violation reports at Cuevas’s urging.

Screening and Claims

Because Wimberly sought relief from government officials, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally.

The court explained that a First Amendment retaliation claim by a prisoner requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s constitutional rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court concluded that the amended complaint stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Sergeant Cuevas based on the alleged retaliation for reporting the missing photo tickets and filing a grievance. It concluded that the complaint did not state a retaliation claim against Didlot, Costello, or Thomas because it did not allege that they knew of Cuevas’s hostility or acted with their own retaliatory motive. The court also found that the amended complaint did not adequately allege that those officers acted because of Wimberly’s protected conduct or without a legitimate correctional purpose.

The court further stated that the amended complaint did not change its earlier conclusions that Wimberly had not stated cognizable claims based on Cuevas’s crude remarks, the treatment of Wimberly’s visitor, the handling of Wimberly’s inmate appeal, or the attempted investigation. Those claims were dismissed without further permission to amend. The court said additional amendment of the retaliation claim against the correctional officers would be futile and did not grant further leave to amend that claim.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court ruled that the amended complaint stated a cognizable claim under § 1983 against Sergeant Cuevas for retaliation and that all other claims and defendants were dismissed. It directed the clerk and the United States Marshal to serve Cuevas without requiring advance payment of fees.

The court set deadlines for Cuevas to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, for Wimberly to respond, and for any reply. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided warnings about opposing a summary-judgment motion. It also instructed Wimberly to serve court filings on defense counsel or, until counsel was designated, on Cuevas, and cautioned that failing to prosecute the case or follow court orders could result in dismissal.

Judge Susan Illston signed the order on July 14, 2020.