Asberry v. Foss

Background

Tony Asberry, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His second amended complaint alleged that, in the summer of 2015, nearly all of his teeth were removed under his dental plan and that he was told he would receive replacement teeth. He alleged that he never received them. After filing a grievance in 2018, he said a dental-prosthetic process began.

Asberry alleged that, on January 10, 2019, the defendant identified as Facility-D Male Dentist “G.” placed completed replacement teeth in his mouth but then refused to give them to him without explanation. He asserted two Eighth Amendment claims, a state-law medical or dental negligence claim, and a claim alleging violations of mandatory state-law duties. He sought an order requiring relief and compensatory and punitive damages.

Screening and rulings

The court reviewed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.

The court held that Asberry’s request for injunctive relief was moot because he had been transferred from Salinas Valley State Prison to Kern Valley State Prison. Because the opinion found no reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that he would again face the same conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison, it dismissed the injunctive-relief claim.

The court found Claims 1 and 2 cognizable under § 1983 and ordered that they proceed. “Cognizable” here means that the allegations were sufficient to allow those claims to continue past initial screening; the court did not decide whether Asberry would win them.

For Claim 3, the state-law claim, the court held that the allegations were sufficiently related to the federal claims to support supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the federal court could hear the related state-law claim in the same case. The court therefore stated that it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claim 3.

The court dismissed Claim 4. It concluded that the cited California laws and regulations were not adequately linked to the alleged injury or to conduct by Dentist “G,” and that some appeared to state general policy goals rather than impose the type of mandatory duty required for liability under California Government Code § 815.6.

Further case procedures

The clerk was directed to send the lawsuit and service-waiver materials, the second amended complaint, and the order to Dentist “G.” The defendant was ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also established deadlines for dispositive motions, opposition, and reply papers, and authorized discovery under the federal rules. It advised the parties about possible motions concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies and summary judgment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the injunctive-relief claim, allowed Claims 1 and 2 to proceed as cognizable § 1983 claims, exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Claim 3, and dismissed Claim 4. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not resolve the ultimate merits of the claims.