Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02573/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02573-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY ASBERRY,

CDCR #P-63853, Civil No. 13cv2573 WQH (JLB)

Plaintiff, ORDER

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by

Plaintiff Tony Asberry. (ECF No. 38). 

I. Background

On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint in this

Court, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for

injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 1-3). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged various Richard

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) officials violated his Eighth Amendment right

to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by providing him inadequate medical care

after he was transferred to RJD in March 2012 from California State Prison-Sacramento. 

Plaintiff further alleged RJD officials did so in retaliation for his having filed CDC 602

inmate appeals and a prior civil rights action related to his medical care in the Eastern

-1- 13cv2573 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-02573-WQH-JLB Document 39 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District of California. 

On April 22, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but simultaneously dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) &

§ 1915A(b) and denied the motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 15). Specifically, the

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Cate and Paramo because his

pleading “contain[ed] virtually no allegation that either of [them] knew of or took any

part” in personally causing him constitutional injury. Id. at 6-8. The Court further found

that while Plaintiff’s allegations of chronic lower back pain were sufficiently pleaded to

show an “objectively serious medical need” under the Eighth Amendment, id. at 10, he

failed to allege further facts to show that Defendants Walker, Silva, Denbella, Chow,

Newton, or Doe acted with deliberate indifference to his need. Id. at 11-12. Finally, the

Court found Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation also failed to state a claim because his

Complaint did not contain sufficient factual matter to show: (1) that any named defendant

took adverse action against him because he exercised a constitutional right, (2) that

defendants’ actions failed to advance a legitimate correctional goal, or (3) that his First

Amendment rights were in any way chilled as a result. Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff was granted

leave to file an amended complaint to correct these deficiencies, and cautioned that any

claims not re-alleged would be considered waived because an amended pleading

supersedes the original. Id. at 13-14. 

On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint which deleted

reference to Defendants Cate, Denbella, and John Doe, Medical Doctor, and re-alleged

his Eighth Amendment claims against previously-named Defendants Walker, Silva,

Chow, and Newton, and alleged additional access to courts claims against newly added

Defendants Beard, Benyard, Allemby, Rutledge, Hernandez, Toledo, Godinez, Morales,

Taylor, and unidentified Jane and John Does. (ECF No. 24). 

On June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief related

to a “new” policy in RJD Fac-B Building 6, which he described as a “campaign directed

-2- 13cv2573 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-02573-WQH-JLB Document 39 Filed 12/22/14 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

at keeping him awake.” (ECF No. 26 at 8). On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff also filed a

motion requesting court-ordered “physical library use” (ECF No. 28). 

In the interim, on June 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice indicating his desire to file

a Second Amended Complaint, based on the contention that he “never received” the

Court’s April 22, 2014 Order dismissing his original complaint for failing to state a claim,

and therefore, he did not have the “opportunity to correct his mistake[s]” when he filed

his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 27 at 2). On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff submitted

a Second Amended Complaint, and the Court accepted it for filing as the operative

pleading in light of the liberality required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,

Plaintiff’s pro se status, and his claims of non-receipt as alleged in his June 24, 2014

Notice.1

 (ECF No. 31); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979

(9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be

applied with extreme liberality.”) (internal quotation omitted); Eldridge v. Block, 832

F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying Rule 15’s leave to amend standards “even

more liberally to pro se litigants.”).

 On August 12, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for library use and for

injunctive relief, and sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). (ECF No. 34). Specifically,

the Court found that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint again failed to state an

Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim as to Defendants Paramo, Beard,

Walker, Silva, Chow, and Newton, and therefore, found further amendment as to those

claims futile. Id. at 5-9, 16. The Court also found Plaintiff’s Second Amended

1

 The Court’s docket indicated that its April 22, 2014 Order (ECF No. 15), was

served upon Plaintiff by mail at the address currently listed in the docket, and was not

returned as undeliverable by the United States Post Office. See In re Bucknum, 951 F.2d

204, 207 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Mail that is properly addressed, stamped, and deposited into the mail is presumed to be received by the addressee . . . The presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the mailing was not, in fact,

accomplished.”); see also Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that where court’s docket included notations that a judgment was mailed and not returned by the post office, its receipt may be assumed).

-3- 13cv2573 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-02573-WQH-JLB Document 39 Filed 12/22/14 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint failed to state an access to courts claim against Defendants Benyard, Allemby,

Rutledge, Hernandez, Toledo, Godinez, Morales, and Taylor, but granted him forty-five

days leave in which to file a Third Amended Complaint which addressed the deficiencies

of pleading identified as to those claims and as to those defendants only.2

 Id. at 9-13, 17. 

Plaintiff was cautioned, however, that “should his Third Amended Complaint still fail to

state an access to courts claim upon which relief may be granted, or should he otherwise

fail to comply with [the Court’s] Order, his civil action w[ould] be dismissed in its

entirety, without further leave to amend, and [might] hereafter be counted as a “strike”

against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. at 18 n.6.

On October 28, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing this case without

prejudice for failure to file a Third Amended Complaint within forty-five days of the

Court’s August 12, 2014 Order and for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

sections 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). (ECF No. 35). On October 29, 2014, the

Clerk of the Court entered judgment of dismissal without prejudice. (ECF No. 36). 

On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF

No. 38). 

II. Discussion

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Third Amended Complaint in this case. Because

Plaintiff did not file a Third Amended Complaint within the time ordered by the Court

on August 12, 2014, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice on October 28, 2014

and judgment was entered on October 29, 2014. (ECF Nos. 34-36). Since that time,

Plaintiff has not filed a motion to reopen the case or a motion for leave to file a Third

Amended Complaint. Because this case has been dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction is denied. 

2

 Because Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint failed to included previously named Defendants Cate and Denbella as parties, the Court noted any purported claim as to them was considered waived. See ECF Doc. No. 34 at 6 n.3 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2 565, 567 (9th Cir, 1987)). The Court further dismissed all unidentified Doe

Defendants based on Plaintiff’s failure to allege any plausible claim for relief against them. Id. at 13-14, 17.

-4- 13cv2573 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-02573-WQH-JLB Document 39 Filed 12/22/14 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.

38) is DENIED. 

DATED: December 22, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

-5- 13cv2573 WQH (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-02573-WQH-JLB Document 39 Filed 12/22/14 Page 5 of 5