Ashker v. Beard

Background

Todd Ashker, a California prisoner representing himself, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case seeks money damages from California prison officials for alleged constitutional violations and breach of a settlement agreement from a prior class action.

Ashker’s claims concerned two periods and locations. He alleged that officials at Pelican Bay State Prison kept him in segregated housing or moved him to a restricted general-population status based on false confidential information between September 2014 and February 2016. He also alleged that thirty-minute checks during a suicide-watch program disrupted his sleep and concentration. For events at Kern Valley State Prison beginning in May 2017, he alleged retaliation connected to his prior class-action lawsuit and challenged the suicide-watch practices there.

The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They also argued that the claims involving Kern Valley officials were improperly joined with the Pelican Bay claims, and they sought dismissal of claims against certain defendants and screening of three newly added defendants.

Rulings

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part. Ashker agreed that the claims against J. Frisk should be dismissed as time-barred. He also did not dispute dismissal of the claims against Martinez and Molina because the First Amended Complaint contained no claims or allegations against them. The court dismissed the claims against those three defendants.

The court ruled that the Kern Valley claims could not remain joined with the Pelican Bay claims. The claims involved different locations, time periods, people, and events, and the court found no common series of events connecting them. Rather than dismissing those claims, the court severed and transferred them to the Eastern District of California, where a new case would be opened concerning Warden C. Pfeiffer, Sgt. A. Alafa, Officer Hightower, Officer Manual Ortiz, Capt. Hammer, Lt. Speidel, and Associate Warden Stebbins.

The court allowed the claim against Beard to proceed. Ashker alleged that Beard was notified that the suicide-watch procedure disrupted his sleep and did nothing, and that the procedure may have led officers to implement it in a constitutionally improper way. The court stated that these allegations, read liberally, stated a legally cognizable claim. It did not decide the defendants’ qualified-immunity defense because they raised it for the first time in their reply brief; the court said that defense could be raised in a later motion for summary judgment.

The court also found the allegations against S. Alfaro, C. Gipson, and R. Diaz sufficient to proceed and ordered that they be served. The remaining defendants were ordered to answer. The court required the remaining defendants, including those newly ordered served, to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the case within 91 days of the order, subject to the response and reply deadlines specified in the order.

Other Orders

The court granted Ashker’s request for more time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied his request for appointment of counsel because the court found no extraordinary circumstances preventing him from representing himself.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted in part. Claims against Martinez, Molina, and J. Frisk were dismissed. Claims against the specified Kern Valley officials were severed and transferred to the Eastern District of California. Service was ordered on S. Alfaro, C. Gipson, and R. Diaz; an extension of time was granted; and appointment of counsel was denied. Because the order primarily addressed pleading sufficiency, joinder, transfer, service, deadlines, and counsel rather than deciding the underlying constitutional claims, this is a procedural order.