Tony Asberry v. Alan Hernandez
Tony ASBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan HERNANDEZ, Associate Warden; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Morgan Christen (author), Alfred T. Goodwin, Edward Leavy
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY ASBERRY, No. 15-55256 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02573-WQH- JLB v. ALAN HERNANDEZ, Associate Warden; MEMORANDUM* et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 15, 2016** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Tony Asberry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and denial of his right to access the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Asberry’s action after Asberry failed to file an amended complaint. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order). For the first time on appeal, Asberry contends that he did not receive the district court’s August 12, 2014 order granting him leave to amend his access-to- courts claim. Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Asberry’s action because amendment would be futile.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55256