Hollis v. Risenhoover

Background

Marvin Glenn Hollis, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at Pelican Bay State Prison. The complaint alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The court states that it previously granted summary judgment for S. Risenhoover and N. Adam and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against them with prejudice. The court ordered the remaining defendants, M. McCall and J. Afdahl, to file a renewed motion for summary judgment. That renewed motion was filed on October 1, 2019.

Hollis then filed motions to alter or amend the earlier ruling, for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, for appointment of counsel, for an extension of time to oppose the renewed summary-judgment motion, and for judicial notice.

Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was premature because no judgment had yet been entered. The court also concluded that Hollis had not shown a basis for relief under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding in specified circumstances such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or another reason justifying relief.

Hollis argued that evidence showed the decision to taper him off tramadol resulted from a policy rather than medical judgment and therefore supported his deliberate-indifference claim. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had considered the submitted evidence and had previously found no genuine dispute of material fact. The court stated that the undisputed evidence showed the defendants did not believe tramadol was medically indicated and that the opioid policy did not negate the medical judgment involved. The motion was denied.

Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied Hollis’s request for an order concerning access to legal papers, research materials, the law library, canteen supplies, eyeglasses, and legal mail. Hollis was then incarcerated at California State Prison—Sacramento, while the remaining defendants worked at Pelican Bay State Prison, where the underlying events occurred.

The court explained that an injunction binds only the parties and certain people connected with them, and that a court must have personal jurisdiction—the legal power to bind—the people or entity against whom an injunction would operate. Because the court lacked jurisdiction over California State Prison—Sacramento and its employees in this action, it denied the motion.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Hollis’s third request for appointed counsel without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the denial did not bar a later request. The court stated that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless the litigant could lose physical liberty, and that appointing counsel for an indigent civil-rights litigant is reserved for exceptional circumstances.

The court found that Hollis’s asserted difficulties, including limited access to legal supplies, lack of legal training, and mental-health problems, did not establish exceptional circumstances. It also found that he had shown an ability to present and litigate his claims and that the issues were not particularly complex. The court left open the possibility of appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted it.

Extension of Time

The court granted Hollis’s motion for more time to oppose the renewed summary-judgment motion. His opposition was due no later than 28 days from the date the order was filed, and defendants’ reply was due no later than 14 days after Hollis’s opposition.

Judicial Notice

The court denied Hollis’s request for judicial notice of documents concerning his indigent-mail status. It found the documents related to the requested preliminary injunction and that the request concerned matters beyond the scope of the action because California State Prison—Sacramento was not a party and could not be subjected to an injunction in this case.

Disposition

The court denied the motions to alter or amend the judgment, for a preliminary injunction, for appointment of counsel, and for judicial notice. It granted the motion for an extension of time. The order terminated Docket Nos. 100, 107, 109, 110, and 111.