Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Hooman Panah, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison, represented himself in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that correctional officers committed unconstitutional acts. The court had previously dismissed claims as untimely and identified one remaining claim: an Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to safety against Anderson and Odom, based on a February 4, 2012 stabbing.

Panah filed a motion for a protective order to prevent defendants from taking his deposition, a renewed request for appointment of counsel, and a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants opposed the motions, moved to compel Panah’s deposition, and requested more time to file a dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the remaining claim.

Protective Order, Deposition, and Counsel

The court denied Panah’s motion for a protective order. It found that discovery had already been authorized, that no additional permission was required for the deposition, and that the deposition would not necessarily duplicate earlier prison interviews. The court also found the deposition relevant and not burdensome.

The court rejected Panah’s argument that his status as a death-penalty inmate entitled him to a lawyer in this civil-rights action. It explained that the statute he relied on concerns criminal proceedings involving a death-penalty defendant seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, while this action concerns prison conditions. The court concluded that Panah had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for appointed counsel and denied the renewed request for appointment of counsel.

Because Panah had appeared for the scheduled deposition but objected and refused to answer questions, defendants had suspended it. The court granted defendants’ motion to compel the deposition. It authorized defendants to reschedule the deposition with proper notice and stated that failure to comply could result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d). The court also reminded defendants’ counsel to limit questions to the issues in the case because of concerns involving Panah’s ongoing post-conviction and clemency proceedings.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court treated Panah’s reconsideration filing as a request for permission to seek reconsideration because he had not first requested leave as required by the Northern District of California’s local rule. The court concluded that Panah had not shown a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a clear error requiring reconsideration.

The court rejected Panah’s arguments concerning warnings about the statute of limitations, the use of a summary-judgment case in prior instructions, California’s six-month statute of limitations and statutory tolling, the timing of defendants’ motion to dismiss, pending discovery, and the dismissal of unserved defendants Moore and Rodriguez. The court also declined to revisit arguments it had already considered and rejected. It denied the request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as without merit and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Extension of Time and Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. Defendants’ motion was due no later than March 29, 2021; Panah’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion was filed; and defendants’ reply was due 14 days after Panah’s opposition was filed.

The order therefore denied Panah’s motion for a protective order and renewed request for appointment of counsel, denied Panah’s motion for reconsideration, granted defendants’ motion to compel Panah’s deposition, and granted defendants’ motion for an extension of time. The order terminated Docket Nos. 218, 219, and 222, while leaving the other provisions of the court’s earlier order in effect.