Harrison Jolly v. R. Badgett Tony Gammon Jim Moore M.K. Rodriguez Roy Osborne Richard D. Davis Huel Jenkins
Opinions
Harrison Jolly, who is serving a prison term in a Missouri penitentiary, appeals the denial of his motion for appointed counsel and the adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent' to his serious medical needs by preventing him from leaving his cell to get water and take his prescribed anti-seizure medication at 4:00 a.m., the prescribed time. Rather, his guards refused to let him out of his cell to get water and take his medication before 6:00 a.m. We believe Jolly’s evidence is sufficient to make a submissible ease on the issue of whether he had a serious medical need to take his medication at the prescribed time. We see no evidence, however, that any of the defendants knew that a mere two-hour delay in Jolly’s taking his medicine would have any adverse effect. Because Jolly has failed to make a submissible case on the issue of deliberate indifference, and because we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying Jolly’s motion for appointment of counsel, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
144 F.3d 573 (Harrison Jolly v. R. Badgett Tony Gammon Jim Moore M.K. Rodriguez Roy Osborne Richard D. Davis Huel Jenkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.