Asberry v. Florez

Background

Tony Asberry, a state prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The alleged events occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Asberry was formerly incarcerated. He named Nurse Florez and Correctional Officers Alba, Villianueva/Villanueva, and Carrillo as defendants. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The court said it would grant Asberry’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate written order. It also found that venue was proper because some events alleged in the complaint occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison, within the district.

Initial screening

Because Asberry is a prisoner seeking relief from government employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that can proceed and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, while requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than merely speculative.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court summarized Asberry’s allegations as including:

- An Eighth Amendment claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety needs after an alleged May 20, 2019 attack by two unnamed inmate workers known as porters. The court said Asberry adequately connected all named defendants to this claim based on their alleged failure to intervene. - An Eighth Amendment claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to properly treat injuries from the May 20, 2019 incident. The court said Asberry adequately connected all named defendants to this claim. - A First Amendment retaliation claim based on the defendants’ alleged failure to protect him during a May 23, 2020 incident because he had filed grievances against other prison staff. - State-law claims, including claims concerning “other violations of mandatory duties imposed on Defendants.”

The court held that Asberry had stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim and cognizable Eighth Amendment claims concerning deliberate indifference to his safety and serious medical needs against all named defendants. It exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case, over Asberry’s state-law claims.

Order and next steps

The court ordered the Clerk to mail the defendants notices and requests to waive service, copies of the complaint and attachments, and a copy of the order. The Clerk also had to send the complaint and order to the State Attorney General’s Office and a copy of the order to Asberry.

The defendants were directed to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order set procedures for dispositive motions, including summary-judgment motions and motions asserting that Asberry failed to complete available prison grievance procedures. It also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules and allowed the defendants to depose Asberry and other necessary incarcerated witnesses.

The order reminded Asberry that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and serving communications on the defendants or their counsel. It also stated that the court may dismiss the complaint without prejudice if court mail is returned as undeliverable and Asberry does not provide a current address within the specified period. The order did not finally decide the truth of the allegations or the ultimate merits of the claims.