Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852-6/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

1 Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation with respect to his

second and third causes of action. Instead, plaintiff filed objections as to dismissal of his first

cause of action and the striking of his request for punitive damages.

06cv852

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv852 L (RBB)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO A

COMPUTER; DISMISSING WITH

PREJUDICE THE SECOND AND

THIRD CLAIMS; and STRIKING

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

On July 10, 2008, the Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. 

The FAC contained three claims: (1) access to the court based upon his inability to use a

computer; (2) denial of adequate law library access; and (3) denial of access to photocopies. 

Plaintiff also sought punitive damages. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation filed

by the magistrate judge and plaintiff’s objections thereto,1

 the Court found that plaintiff’s first

claim was not exhausted; the second claim failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; and the third claim was

not exhausted and failed to state a claim. The Court also struck plaintiff’s request for punitive

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 68 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2 06cv852

damages.

Plaintiff appealed the Court’s ruling. On appeal the district court’s ruling was affirmed in

part, vacated in part and remanded. The Ninth Circuit concluded that although the Court

“properly determined that Armstrong failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his claim

concerning access to a computer,” the claim should have been dismissed without prejudice. In

all other respects the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s determination that claims two and three

were dismissed with prejudice: “Armstrong’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.” The

Court of Appeals also noted that it “need not reach Armstrong’s contention that the district court

erred in striking punitive damages.” The mandate was issued and the spreading of the mandate

occurred on December 1, 2009.

Having received the mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit, IT IS ORDERED dismissing

without prejudice plaintiff’s first cause of action; dismissing with prejudice the second and third

causes of action; and striking plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 68 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2