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

Background

Hooman Panah, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers and other defendants. After earlier rulings, the only remaining claim was an Eighth Amendment claim against Correctional Officers J. Anderson and Odom concerning an unexpected inmate attack on February 4, 2012, and the alleged failure to prevent or adequately respond to it. Defendant Odom’s motion for summary judgment was addressed in a separate order and was not decided here.

This order addressed Panah’s pending motions for a protective order, to compel discovery, to defer briefing on Odom’s summary-judgment motion, to appoint pro bono counsel, to add newly obtained evidence, and to file inmate declarations under seal. It also addressed the defendants’ motions to strike the new evidence and to extend their time to reply to that motion.

Protective Order and Counsel

Panah sought a protective order based on alleged strip searches, anal visual searches, harassment, and other conduct by San Quentin staff during events surrounding a January 28, 2021 deposition. He asked the court to preserve security video and sought other relief concerning his deposition. Judge Freeman denied the request because the alleged conduct involved non-parties and was not part of the action’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim. The order stated that any claims based on that conduct would have to be pursued in a new and separate action.

Panah also renewed his request for appointed counsel and later asked the court to solicit pro bono counsel. The court denied both requests for lack of exceptional circumstances. It reasoned that Panah continued to show an ability to litigate the case himself and that the new allegations were unrelated to the remaining claim.

Discovery

The court denied Panah’s motion and renewed motion to compel discovery. Regarding the first set of requests, the court held that the defendants adequately responded and properly invoked the official-information privilege, a protection for certain confidential government information. The defendants had produced nearly 2,400 pages and supported their privilege claims with declarations explaining the risks to prison security, staff and inmate privacy, informants, and investigative procedures. The court also found that Panah had not shown why the withheld information was relevant, what harm would result from withholding it, or how extensive that harm would be. His request to strike the declarations, the defendants’ opposition, and the defendants’ summary-judgment motion based on alleged perjury was denied.

The court also found that Panah had not shown that his second set of discovery requests was relevant or proportional to the remaining claim. The requests concerned earlier allegations of staff misconduct and a 2020 article about alleged “gladiator fights,” but Panah did not connect those matters to the 2012 attack or to Anderson and Odom. The court denied the request for further production from that set.

As to newer requests listed in a May 9, 2021 letter, the court found that the letter contained substantially new requests and that Panah had not first made a good-faith effort to meet and confer about them. The court denied the motion to compel those requests for failure to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement. It reminded Panah that future discovery had to be relevant to the remaining Eighth Amendment claim and proportional to the needs of the case.

Briefing and Sealing

Panah asked to defer briefing on Odom’s summary-judgment motion until additional discovery was provided. The court denied that request. It found that Panah had already filed a substantial opposition with declarations and exhibits, had not specifically identified missing discovery necessary to oppose summary judgment, and had not shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) that he could not present essential facts. Odom’s summary-judgment motion was deemed submitted when Odom filed his reply.

The court granted Panah’s corrected administrative motion to file inmate declarations under seal and ordered the related docket materials to remain sealed. The court stated that it would consider the declarations as part of Panah’s opposition to Odom’s summary-judgment motion.

New Evidence and Motions to Strike

Panah sought to add a declaration from inmate Lee Max Barnett describing statements that inmate Joseph Barrett allegedly made about attempting to murder Panah at Odom’s direction. The defendants argued that the proposed evidence was inadmissible hearsay—an out-of-court statement offered to prove what it asserts—and moved to strike it.

Judge Freeman denied the motion to add the new evidence and granted the motion to strike. The court concluded that Panah had not shown that Barrett was unavailable, as required for the statement-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule. It also found no sufficient basis for treating the statements as statements adopted by Odom, prior inconsistent statements, opposing-party statements, or coconspirator statements. The court ordered the two declarations from Barrett to be stricken as inadmissible hearsay.

The court also denied Panah’s request to strike Odom’s summary-judgment motion and reply based on Panah’s claim that he had not received the reply. The defendants’ certificate of service and the record supported service, and Panah provided no legal authority for striking the filings.

Disposition

The court denied Panah’s motion for a protective order and renewed motions for appointment of counsel; denied his motion and renewed motion to compel discovery; denied his request to defer briefing; granted his motion for a protective order to file inmate declarations under seal; denied his motion to add newly obtained material evidence; granted the defendants’ motion to strike that evidence; and granted the defendants’ motion for an extension of time to reply to the motion to strike. The order terminated Docket Nos. 235, 245, 247, 248, 262, 263, 264, and 266. It did not decide Odom’s separate motion for summary judgment.