1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CRAIG ERVIN WIMBERLY, Case No. 24-cv-01489-EKL
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9
10 RON BROOMFIELD, et al., Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 14 second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff has filed a third 15 amended complaint. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Standard of Review 18 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 19 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 3 A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 4 at 570. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be 5 supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should 6 assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 7 relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 9 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 10 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under Section 1983 if the plaintiff can show 12 that the defendant’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 13 protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th 14 Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a 15 constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates 16 in another’s affirmative act, or fails to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that 17 causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. 18 Plaintiff’s Allegations and Procedural History 19 Similar to the prior second amended complaint, plaintiff does not set forth the majority of 20 the specific facts in the instant third amended complaint. Because plaintiff is incarcerated and 21 proceeding pro se, the Court will recount the facts from the original complaint. ECF No. 5. On 22 January 18, 2023, plaintiff’s cell was randomly searched, and he received two Rules Violations 23 Reports (“RVRs”) for possession of a cell phone charging cord and for homemade alcohol. ECF 24 No. 5 at 2. He was found guilty of the RVRs at a disciplinary hearing. Id. As punishment, 25 plaintiff received 30 days loss of time credits and loss of privileges. Id. at 37-38, 47-48. Plaintiff 26 argued that his rights were violated during the disciplinary process. In the original complaint, 27 plaintiff named several defendants but failed to describe the actions of any defendant in the 1 of the specific defendants and describe how his rights were violated in the disciplinary process. 2 ECF 12. Plaintiff was also instructed to discuss why the case was not barred because he lost time 3 credits. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (applying Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 4 477, 486-87 (1994), to bar prisoner’s claim that officials used unconstitutional procedures in a 5 disciplinary hearing, which resulted in the deprivation of time credits, if “the nature of the 6 challenge . . . necessarily imply the invalidity of the judgment”). 7 The amended complaint was summarily dismissed with leave to amend, because plaintiff 8 failed to follow the Court’s instructions. ECF No. 14 at 1-2. Rather than identify the actions of 9 specific defendants or describing how his rights were violated during the disciplinary process, 10 plaintiff presented a few vague allegations and failed to address the question of the Heck and 11 Edwards bar. Id. at 2. 12 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, in which he alleged that two defendants 13 violated prison procedures by not taking a photo of the suspected contraband. ECF No. 23 at 1. 14 He stated that another defendant claimed it was a random search but had a screwdriver that he was 15 able to use to open a light box in plaintiff’s cell. Id. at 2. Plaintiff contended that because the 16 defendant came prepared with a screwdriver, the search was not random. Id. Plaintiff further 17 alleged that these defendants failed to follow other prison procedures. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff stated 18 that he was found guilty at the disciplinary hearing, but certain procedural protocols were not 19 followed. Id. at 4. Plaintiff did not provide more information about the violation of the 20 procedural protocols. Id. The second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 21 because it suffered from the same deficiencies as prior complaints, and plaintiff had failed again to 22 address the issues raised by the Court. Plaintiff was also instructed that he must address why this 23 case is not barred pursuant to Edwards and Heck because he lost time credits. Thus, to obtain 24 money damages pursuant to Section 1983, the disciplinary finding would have to first be reversed 25 or expunged. Plaintiff was informed that no further amendments would be allowed if these 26 deficiencies were not addressed. 27 In this third amended complaint, plaintiff repeats his allegations that the search was not 1 ECF No. 28 at 1. Plaintiff states that he was not permitted to question witnesses at the disciplinary 2 hearing nor was he provided staff assistance, but he does not identify any defendants involved in 3 overseeing the hearing who violated his rights. Id. at 1-2. Nor does plaintiff address why this case 4 is not barred pursuant to Edwards and Heck. 5 Analysis 6 Prisoners are protected from being deprived of liberty without due process of law. Wolff v. 7 McDonnell,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CRAIG ERVIN WIMBERLY, Case No. 24-cv-01489-EKL
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9
10 RON BROOMFIELD, et al., Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 14 second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff has filed a third 15 amended complaint. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Standard of Review 18 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 19 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 3 A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 4 at 570. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be 5 supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should 6 assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 7 relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 9 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 10 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under Section 1983 if the plaintiff can show 12 that the defendant’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 13 protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th 14 Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a 15 constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates 16 in another’s affirmative act, or fails to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that 17 causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. 18 Plaintiff’s Allegations and Procedural History 19 Similar to the prior second amended complaint, plaintiff does not set forth the majority of 20 the specific facts in the instant third amended complaint. Because plaintiff is incarcerated and 21 proceeding pro se, the Court will recount the facts from the original complaint. ECF No. 5. On 22 January 18, 2023, plaintiff’s cell was randomly searched, and he received two Rules Violations 23 Reports (“RVRs”) for possession of a cell phone charging cord and for homemade alcohol. ECF 24 No. 5 at 2. He was found guilty of the RVRs at a disciplinary hearing. Id. As punishment, 25 plaintiff received 30 days loss of time credits and loss of privileges. Id. at 37-38, 47-48. Plaintiff 26 argued that his rights were violated during the disciplinary process. In the original complaint, 27 plaintiff named several defendants but failed to describe the actions of any defendant in the 1 of the specific defendants and describe how his rights were violated in the disciplinary process. 2 ECF 12. Plaintiff was also instructed to discuss why the case was not barred because he lost time 3 credits. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (applying Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 4 477, 486-87 (1994), to bar prisoner’s claim that officials used unconstitutional procedures in a 5 disciplinary hearing, which resulted in the deprivation of time credits, if “the nature of the 6 challenge . . . necessarily imply the invalidity of the judgment”). 7 The amended complaint was summarily dismissed with leave to amend, because plaintiff 8 failed to follow the Court’s instructions. ECF No. 14 at 1-2. Rather than identify the actions of 9 specific defendants or describing how his rights were violated during the disciplinary process, 10 plaintiff presented a few vague allegations and failed to address the question of the Heck and 11 Edwards bar. Id. at 2. 12 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, in which he alleged that two defendants 13 violated prison procedures by not taking a photo of the suspected contraband. ECF No. 23 at 1. 14 He stated that another defendant claimed it was a random search but had a screwdriver that he was 15 able to use to open a light box in plaintiff’s cell. Id. at 2. Plaintiff contended that because the 16 defendant came prepared with a screwdriver, the search was not random. Id. Plaintiff further 17 alleged that these defendants failed to follow other prison procedures. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff stated 18 that he was found guilty at the disciplinary hearing, but certain procedural protocols were not 19 followed. Id. at 4. Plaintiff did not provide more information about the violation of the 20 procedural protocols. Id. The second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 21 because it suffered from the same deficiencies as prior complaints, and plaintiff had failed again to 22 address the issues raised by the Court. Plaintiff was also instructed that he must address why this 23 case is not barred pursuant to Edwards and Heck because he lost time credits. Thus, to obtain 24 money damages pursuant to Section 1983, the disciplinary finding would have to first be reversed 25 or expunged. Plaintiff was informed that no further amendments would be allowed if these 26 deficiencies were not addressed. 27 In this third amended complaint, plaintiff repeats his allegations that the search was not 1 ECF No. 28 at 1. Plaintiff states that he was not permitted to question witnesses at the disciplinary 2 hearing nor was he provided staff assistance, but he does not identify any defendants involved in 3 overseeing the hearing who violated his rights. Id. at 1-2. Nor does plaintiff address why this case 4 is not barred pursuant to Edwards and Heck. 5 Analysis 6 Prisoners are protected from being deprived of liberty without due process of law. Wolff v. 7 McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal 8 prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” 9 Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556. The minimum procedural requirements that must be met in such 10 proceedings are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours between the time the 11 prisoner receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that the prisoner may prepare his 12 defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finders of the evidence they rely on and reasons for 13 taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of the prisoner to call witnesses in his defense, when 14 permitting him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional 15 goals; and (5) legal assistance to the prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate or the issues presented 16 are legally complex. Id. at 563-71. 17 In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, 18 a Section 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct 19 appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called 20 into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. 21 Heck bars a claim of unconstitutional deprivation of time credits because such a claim necessarily 22 implicates the duration of the plaintiff’s sentence and, thus, calls into question the lawfulness of 23 the plaintiff’s continuing confinement. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 645 (applying Heck bar to claim 24 that officials used unconstitutional procedures in a disciplinary hearing, which resulted in the 25 deprivation of time credits, if the nature of the procedural challenge is such as to necessarily 26 “imply the invalidity of the judgment”). 27 The third amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as prior complaints, and 1 more details regarding how his rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing, he does not 2 || identify any defendant involved in the hearing who was responsible for these alleged violations. 3 || To the extent that plaintiff alleges the named defendants violated prison procedures or regulations 4 under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, this fails to state a constitutional claim as 5 required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Nible v. Fink, 828 F. App’x. 463, 464 (9th Cir. 2020) (no 6 || implied private right of action for violation of Title 15 prison regulations). To state a Section 7 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 8 States was violated. Finally, this case is barred pursuant to Edwards and Heck. If plaintiff were to 9 succeed in this complaint, it would call into question the validity of the disciplinary finding. To 10 || obtain money damages or injunctive relief through a Section 1983 action, the disciplinary finding 11 must first be reversed or expunged. 12 Plaintiff has been provided multiple opportunities to amend but has still failed to state a 13 federal claim. Because it would be futile to allow further amendment, this action is dismissed 14 || without leave to amend. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Leave to 3 15 amend should be granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other a 16 || facts, and should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”) (citation and internal quotation 3 17 marks omitted). CONCLUSION 19 1. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The dismissal is without 20 || prejudice, but plaintiff can only bring this civil rights action if his disciplinary finding is reversed 21 or expunged. 22 2. The Clerk is requested to enter judgment and close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 17, 2025 25 Gin umi K. Lee 27 United States District Judge 28