Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Thomas A. Hill v. Harry S. Koon
Citations: 24 F.3d 246; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 19019; 1994 WL 192284Docket: 93-16628
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 17, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 states that non-published dispositions are not precedential and should be cited only under specific legal doctrines. Thomas A. Hill, a Nevada state prisoner, is appealing the district court's denial to lift a stay on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action, which was administratively closed while an interlocutory appeal was pending. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 to review the stay, recognizing it as appealable under the collateral order exception. The court reverses the district court's decision regarding the stay but raises the issue of jurisdiction concerning Hill's appeal of the denial of his 'renewed' motion for summary judgment. Since the district court did not dismiss all defendants or comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the order is not final, meaning the court lacks jurisdiction to review the summary judgment denial at this time. The stay of Hill's Sec. 1983 claim, reviewed for abuse of discretion, was deemed appropriate as it allows the district court to manage its docket efficiently. The district court had previously granted Koon’s motion for summary judgment on all but one claim, related to Hill's placement in punitive segregation without due process. After Hill filed an interlocutory appeal, the district court vacated the trial date and administratively closed the case, which it later stayed pending the appeal. When Hill's interlocutory appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, he filed an application to reopen the case, which the district court denied without explanation. Hill's interlocutory appeal impacted his Sec. 1983 action, allowing the district court to vacate his trial date and stay the case until the appeal's outcome. After the dismissal of Hill's appeal, his due process claim against defendant Koon remained unresolved. The district court's failure to provide an explanation for denying Hill's application to reopen his case led to an indefinite stay that exceeded the original rationale for the administrative action. This decision contradicted the court's prior order, which indicated the stay was 'without prejudice' and could be reopened by either party. As a result, the district court abused its discretion in denying Hill's application to reopen his action. Consequently, the court vacated the denial and remanded the case for further proceedings. Only Captain Harry Koon remains as the defendant, following the dismissal of Warden Harold Whitley and Nevada Department of Prisons Director George Sumner. The district court previously found insufficient evidence to support Hill's claims regarding Koon's interference with his medical needs related to a back condition.