Hollis

Hollis v. Risenhoover

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 18, 20205:17-cv-00326California7,345 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, Case No. 17-00326 BLF (PR) 11 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY v.

JUDGMENT; DENYING

13 PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14 RISENHOOVER, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 (Docket Nos. 104, 123)

17 18 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 based on care he received while at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), 20 where he was formerly housed. Dkt. No. 1. Finding the complaint stated a cognizable 21 Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, the Court 22 issued an order of service and directed Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment 23 or other dispositive motion.1 Dkt. No. 53. Defendants Dr. McCall and J. Afdahl filed a 24 motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not act with deliberate 25

26 1 The Court granted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.