Hollis v. Risenhoover

Background

Marvin Glenn Hollis, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at Pelican Bay State Prison. He alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court previously granted summary judgment—a ruling that there was no genuine dispute requiring trial—for S. Risenhoover and N. Adam and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against them with prejudice. The court ordered the remaining defendants, McCall and Afdahl, to file a renewed summary-judgment motion.

This order addressed several pending motions filed by Hollis, along with requests by both sides for additional time to file responses.

Motion to Amend the Complaint and Request for Recusal

Hollis sought to add conspiracy claims involving McCall and Afdahl and conspiracy and retaliation claims involving Adam. The court denied leave to amend based on undue delay. It found that Hollis had known about the proposed allegations for a substantial period, had filed several earlier amendment motions without raising the specific claim against Adam, and had not provided a proposed amended complaint containing specific supporting allegations. The court also explained that a conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an underlying constitutional violation and cannot stand alone.

Hollis also sought recusal, meaning removal of the judge based on alleged bias or prejudice. The court denied that request. It found that the record did not cause a reasonable, well-informed person to question the court’s impartiality and that Hollis had presented no other evidence overcoming the presumption that the court could act fairly.

Medical Records and Discovery

Hollis requested a court order allowing him to inspect and review his medical and mental-health records to prepare his opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court denied the motion as moot because Hollis had already filed his opposition.

The court denied Hollis’s request to reopen discovery concerning the claims against Risenhoover and Adam. Those claims had already been litigated, the request came nearly three months after summary judgment was granted for those defendants, and Hollis had not shown due diligence in obtaining the records earlier. The court also noted that it had already denied a prior request for reconsideration concerning the matter.

Correction of Defendants’ Names

The court granted Hollis’s motion to correct the names of the remaining defendants. It directed the Clerk to update the docket to identify them as Mariposa McCall, M.D., and Jennifer Afdahl.

Expert Witness and Appointment of Counsel

The court denied, without prejudice, Hollis’s requests for an expert witness and appointed counsel. The court stated that appointed counsel in this type of civil case is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances. It found that Hollis had shown an ability to present and litigate his claims and that the deliberate-indifference issue at that stage concerned the defendants’ state of mind, which the court found was not unusually complex and did not require expert testimony. The court left open the possibility of appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted it.

Judicial Notice and Extensions of Time

The court denied Hollis’s request for judicial notice. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts without requiring ordinary proof when those facts are not reasonably disputable. The court found that the cited case law consisted of legal arguments and that the publication and briefs contained material still subject to reasonable dispute.

The court granted Hollis’s motion for an extension of time and granted the defendants’ motions for extensions of time. It also granted the defendants additional time to file their reply to Hollis’s opposition to summary judgment, requiring that reply within 14 days after the order was filed. The order stated that the matter would be considered submitted when that reply was due.

Disposition

The court denied the motions to amend or correct the complaint, for recusal, for access to medical records, to reopen discovery, for an expert witness, for appointment of counsel, and for judicial notice. It granted the motion to correct the defendants’ names and granted the identified motions for extensions of time. The order terminated the listed motions but did not decide the pending renewed summary-judgment motion in this order.