[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
So if you come, and I am counting here on the clock, so I'll call time on you if I think that you're done, but I'll make sure my colleagues don't have any questions.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Certified Law Student Michaela Firmage on behalf of Plaintiff Appellant Andrew Avila.

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
I would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
Mr. Avila was going blind and Mr. Felder and CCHCS medical staff gave him eye drops and Advil.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
In extreme pain and losing his vision, Mr. Avila, who communicates at a fifth grade level, filed a pro se complaint from prison alleging that Mr. Felder and CCH medical staff were denying him constitutionally adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
At the pre-service screening stage, the district court dismissed Mr. Avila's claim with prejudice after only one opportunity to amend.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
This was an error for two reasons.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
First, Mr. Avila stated at least one plausible 8th Amendment claim, so dismissal at this very early stage was inappropriate.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
Second, even if he had not, however, this court is clear that Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
On appeal, Mr. Avila simply asks this court to hold that he's alleged enough to survive screening or to remand with instructions to permit Mr. Avila opportunity to amend so that he can clarify how defendants deliberate indifference cost him his eyesight.

[00:01:23] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you this.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
The district court thought that Mr. Avila's complaint only stated a difference of opinion between an inmate and prison medical personnel.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
and that this did not adequately state a claim, how do we determine whether there is just a difference of opinion or a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference?

[00:01:45] Speaker 04:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
So this is not just a difference of medical opinion for a few reasons.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
First, Mr. Felder is not a licensed doctor.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
He has no medical qualifications, so the court should not give any weight to any kind of medical opinion that he may have.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Avila alleges that Mr. Felder was attending to him personally, face-to-face, like a physician.

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
Second, even if Mr. Felder were somehow competent to make medical determinations, which we know he isn't, this wouldn't be a non-actionable difference.

[00:02:13] Speaker 04:
What is this complaint?

[00:02:14] Speaker 04:
What is it about his complaint that's enough?

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
Sure, so in Mr. Alveoli's amended complaint on ER 46, he alleges that Mr. Felder, you know, was, he approached Mr. Felder in face-to-face meetings and he told Mr. Felder, my vision's deteriorating, I'm having pain behind my eyes, I can't see where I'm walking, I can't even use the bathroom without pain.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
Mr. Felder, who's a CEO with no medical license,

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
in response to this clear medical emergency, does nothing but read Mr. Avula's chart, prescribe him medication, and refuse to authorize necessary care, and Mr. Avula simply eventually goes blind.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
So this... Does he go totally blind or just in one eye?

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
It's just in his, excuse me, in his right eye.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:02:55] Speaker 03:
And so did he ever get any medical care?

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
You tell me he keeps seeing Mr. Felder, but did a medical provider ever see him?

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
He does see a few medical care providers, but it's important to look at when he saw these providers.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
He's diagnosed with a retinal detachment in early 2018.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
At that point, medical personnel document the retinal detachment.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
They recommend him for surgery, and they note that

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
Let me ask about that because I'm looking at ER 24 and I see a handwritten note there.

[00:03:26] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
And it says recommend not done until 2021.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
What is that?

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
At least what's your understanding that that is alluding to?

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
So some additional context for that written note is also on ER 20 where Mr. Avula alleges that he was recommended for surgery but it wasn't provided to him until 2021.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
So by the time Mr. Avula actually received surgery three years later, he's lost his vision and he's actually been diagnosed with five other vision-threatening conditions.

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
So is that handwriting his or who wrote that?

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
We're not entirely sure.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
It appears to be Mr. Avula's just based on comparison to the complaint, which is handwritten.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
However, I couldn't say conclusively.

[00:04:08] Speaker 05:
What do I do with the following?

[00:04:11] Speaker 05:
It seems to me unlikely in the extreme that the CEO of the prison would have dealt once or repeatedly with Mr. Avila on a medical matter.

[00:04:26] Speaker 05:
It just strikes me as almost beyond credence.

[00:04:29] Speaker 05:
What do I do with that?

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
Sure, Your Honour.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
So, of course, this court is not required to credit allegations that are, you know, fantastical or beyond credence, but these are not those kinds of allegations.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
This court recognized in both Hop To It and Toussaint that the unlicensed provision of medical care does happen in prisons.

[00:04:45] Speaker 05:
In Hop To It, for example... But by the CEO...

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
By and hop to it, for example, it was a hospital supervisor.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
So it was likewise a prison administrator.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
So unfortunately, this kind of care or this unlicensed provision of medical care by prison officials without the competency to do so has happened and this court has criticized it in the past.

[00:05:04] Speaker 05:
So what happens if we let this case go forward, and it turns out that Mr. Felder, who's not a doctor, responds and says, that's just not true.

[00:05:15] Speaker 05:
I never saw this guy in my life.

[00:05:19] Speaker 05:
But nonetheless, I'm now assuming, I don't know.

[00:05:22] Speaker 05:
Nonetheless, we did get the treatment of which Mr. Avila complains.

[00:05:26] Speaker 05:
It was just by different doctors.

[00:05:28] Speaker 05:
What happens as we go forward?

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
If Mr. Felder is... I just would like to remind the court that even if Mr. Felder is relying on other medical care providers or these medical care providers offered him some care, it wouldn't defeat this claim because the care that Mr. Avila received was medically unacceptable.

[00:05:52] Speaker 05:
But he hasn't named anybody yet.

[00:05:53] Speaker 05:
He's got an et al, but the only person he's named is Felder.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
But he explains in his objections to the district court's screening order that he intended to sue unknown medical defendants once their identities were known to him.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
On ER 20, he explains that you can't sue someone you don't know.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
So the use of at all and defendants plural is really consistent with his express intention to sue unnamed medical defendants once their identities become known to him.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
So since Mr. Avila has had the eye surgery, why does he need injunctive relief?

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
So just would like to remind the court that, of course, even if later down the line, adjunctive relief is not determined appropriate, he'd still have a claim for damages.

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
But Mr. Avila is still experiencing pain, which would entitle him to some kind of prospective relief.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
And we also don't know much about the surgery that he ultimately did receive in 2021.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
There's very limited information in the record.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
And he files his complaint after receiving that surgery, in which he alleges that he's still having vision loss, he's still having pain.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
A question for a later day, exactly what kind of care Mr. Avila would be entitled to.

[00:07:01] Speaker 04:
So if Mr. Avila, let's just say hypothetically, I don't know what this panel will conclude.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
We haven't, we haven't conferenced on this and we haven't, we're hearing oral argument now.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
Hypothetically, if we say you didn't state a claim, but we say, okay, he was a pro se, he's entitled to leave to amend.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
If he was given leave to amend for a second amended complaint, what additional or different allegations would the complaint allege?

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
So Mr. Avila could add additional allegations.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
He could simply, with respect to the unknown defendant specifically, he could

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
better articulate exactly those claims.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
He has a lot of evidence in the record that he could reattach to an amended complaint, and he could do a greater job of explaining with particularity how these medical records relate to his claims.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
So for example, to his objections, he attaches CDCR medical recommendations that show he was entitled to, or that he was recommended for retinol detachment surgery by an unknown RN.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
In an amended complaint, he could very clearly state

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
I was seen by an unknown RN, they recommended me surgery, and I never got it.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
We'd also hope that counsel could help with just tidying up and refining of his pleadings, and so he could just state with greater clarity exactly what his claim is.

[00:08:21] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
Your time's up, but let me find out.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
My colleagues don't have any additional questions.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
I'm Deputy Attorney General Martha Alenbach and I'm appearing as amicus counsel for the secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
The district court properly dismissed Mr. Avila's lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
Mr. Avella disagreed with the medical care he received for various eye conditions.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
Counsel, let me ask you to address this because it hits on that point.

[00:09:06] Speaker 03:
Is it adequate under the Eighth Amendment to offer some medical treatment even if it does not address the underlying medical issue, which is the nuts and bolts of basically Mr. Avella's case?

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
The standard under the Eighth Amendment is knowing indifference to a serious medical need.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
So Mr. Avella would have had to allege facts showing that CEO Felder, who, as we all know, is an executive, not a physician, knew and disregarded a serious medical need of which he was aware.

[00:09:34] Speaker 05:
And those facts are just implausible, given the record, and particularly given- I'm assuming that, in fact, it was Felder, which I have already indicated.

[00:09:43] Speaker 05:
I'm skeptical that it was.

[00:09:46] Speaker 05:
How does that standard apply new and so on?

[00:09:48] Speaker 05:
He's not a doctor.

[00:09:49] Speaker 05:
He probably knows nothing.

[00:09:51] Speaker 05:
So would it be deliberate indifference if someone who knows nothing purports to provide treatment?

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
I have two responses to that, Your Honor.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
The first would be, whatever happened, the standard would still be the same.

[00:10:04] Speaker 05:
I'm asking you, how do we apply it when someone is dead ignorant about medical matters?

[00:10:11] Speaker 05:
You're saying, well, the test is he knew the medical problem and mistreated it.

[00:10:16] Speaker 05:
But what do you do with someone who purports to be a doctor, is not a doctor, doesn't understand the condition, doesn't understand the appropriate treatment, and does treatment anyway?

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
Well, first of all, as Your Honor pointed out, those allegations are not credible, but it would still have to... Assuming, for example, that a non-doctor prescribed somebody Tylenol, I can't see how that would be deliberate indifference if they weren't aware that that would cause a substantially serious risk of harm to somebody.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
But in this case, we have evidence that

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
CEO Felder was relying on the opinions of the physicians because he reviewed Mr. Avila's health care grievance, and the health care grievance stated that Mr. Avila was receiving various types of care.

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
Well, but it appears that Mr. Avila alleges that Mr. Felder, either directly or through personnel he supervised, was indifferent to, this is what he alleges, to Avila's serious eye infection for several years.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
Is it your position

[00:11:19] Speaker 04:
that Avala failed to adequately present such a claim to the district court or that an allegation fails to state a cognizable claim or both.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
Both.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
Mr. Avila's allegations were very vague regarding what CEO Felder did.

[00:11:37] Speaker 01:
But we also have, looking back to his original complaint, what Mr. Avila himself said was that CEO Felder had documentary evidence of his condition.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
And that's all he said.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
And so we look to that evidence and we look at the grievance.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
And according to that grievance, CEO Felder saw that he was receiving care.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
So based on his review, there's no basis to find that he knew that Mr. Avila needed different care than what he was receiving from his treatment team.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Avila's bare allegation that he thought he should have been treated differently really amounts to a difference of opinion between him and his treatment team regarding the care he was receiving.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
Well, your brief relies heavily on Zuko partners in asserting that the district court has discretion to deny leave to amend.

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
But unlike in Zuko, Avila was a prison proceeding pro se.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
Would it be a better policy to allow a plaintiff like Avila another chance?

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
Mr. Havella did have a second chance after he filed his original complaint.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
You just don't want to go with third time's the charm.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
The district court has wide discretion here, Your Honor, and so especially when they've given the plaintiff notice of exactly what they need to do.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
They need to allege specific facts, tying a particular actor to the alleged deliberate indifference.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Avila similarly didn't do that.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
I'd like also to make the point that Mr. Avila has access to his records.

[00:13:11] Speaker 05:
Wait a minute.

[00:13:11] Speaker 05:
You said he didn't do this.

[00:13:12] Speaker 05:
Let me just redo the allegation.

[00:13:16] Speaker 05:
at ER 47, I seen the Dr. Michael E. Felder several times for several days and the defendant being in charge for medical policy has to sign an emergency outpatient order.

[00:13:27] Speaker 05:
He refused to do so for a year and I lost my right vision permanently which could have been avoided if he had done his job.

[00:13:35] Speaker 05:
Now, what more does he need to say?

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
Those allegations are implausible, Your Honor, given the original complaint.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
The health care grievance clearly shows that CEO Felder didn't deny any care.

[00:13:46] Speaker 05:
There was surgery discussed and he... Assuming that that's plausible, what's wrong with it?

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
The district court could look at that context, but it's also, it's still vague and it's- It's not really implausible to think in the bureaucratic world.

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
I mean, anyone that's dealt with trying to get a procedure approved, it's not, and then much less you're a prisoner in CDC, that they just don't get around to approving it.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
I mean, he doesn't have, he eventually has eye surgery, but how many years later is it after the whole thing started?

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
The record shows he did have a surgery in 2018 before he even alleged CEO Felder was involved.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
And the record at pages 77 to 78, what CEO Felder writes is that there is a condition that Mr. Avila has that's not painful, that his physicians are, that there is a possibility of surgery to correct blurry vision,

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
But that Mr. Avell is going to need to discuss that with his physicians.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
There's no indication that grievance response was denying surgery.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
There was a further headquarters level review of the grievance, which is at ER 76.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
and ER 79 or 80, I believe.

[00:15:04] Speaker 01:
And again, there's no indication that CEO Felder was denying surgery or emergent medical care in that response.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
And so to take that and then say that Mr. Avila, who was very clear in his complaint on page ER 70, he said CEO Felder is a chief executive officer, MS, MBA.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
And then after the district court,

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
tells him what he needs to do to state a claim.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
He essentially provides these allegations that are very inconsistent.

[00:15:37] Speaker 01:
He says CEO Felder is now a doctor, where he knew that he was not a doctor given his original allegations.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
And we also know that he had access to his medical records to find out individual names of individuals who gave him care.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
Is he blind in one eye?

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Um, my understanding is for, um, significantly blind in one eye.

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
And is this, is there some indication that there was a surgery in 2021 and this all started three years earlier?

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
That's somewhat unclear from the record.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
I would point, Your Honors, to the excerpts of record at page 35, where it shows that there was a request for services for an ophthalmology evaluation.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
And there's specific names of physicians and medical staff listed there, none of whom are CEO Felder.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
Same in the record at pages 20 to 24, Mr. Avila attached records to his objections to the findings and recommendations, none of which show that CEO Felder had any involvement in his care or treatment at that point.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
So that's part of why, considering the context, Mr. Avila's allegations were so implausible.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
I wanted to address, you stated earlier that Mr. Avila's

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
The way that he stated things in his complaint and then in the amended complaint were different and, you know, conflicting where he called Mr. Felder.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
He had an MS and an MBA and he was his chief executive officer.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
I mean, that's literally in the title underneath his signature block.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
It's fair to believe that someone with a fifth grade education who's in custody

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
just basically cut and paste or, you know, copy.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
So I don't know that it's indicative to us that he knew that this meant that he wasn't an actual doctor when he later referred to him as a doctor because in his mind, at least to me, it seems probable that he could think, oh, this person's the one dictating if I can get surgery or if I can't get surgery, so he must be a doctor.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
I don't understand your position that while he said he was an MS slash MBA and the chief executive officer, I don't know that someone with a fifth grade education in custody is going to create or know that that means he cannot be the other.

[00:17:53] Speaker 03:
You know, it's not mutually exclusive.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
Well, the fact that he didn't state that in his original complaint, Your Honor, means he was at least familiar with his position.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
And he had the health care grievance.

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
And he was looking at that grievance and said, this person has documentary evidence.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
Not this person was involved in my care.

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
That's not what he said there.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
And the plaintiff, as the master of his complaint as well, only sued CEO Felder.

[00:18:19] Speaker 01:
He didn't name any other individuals in his amended complaint as a defendant.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
He didn't state any specific facts about what they, these unnamed individuals, did or failed to do despite, again, as we know, having access to his records.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
And he didn't

[00:18:36] Speaker 01:
reference specific actions by any physicians.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
So to say that the district court erred, when what it had in front of it was a complaint that sued one particular individual, and when they referred to defendants in the plural, he did name CCHCS as an additional defendant in the body of that amended complaint, but that's it.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
So there's no error in the district court looking at that and taking Mr. Avila at his word.

[00:19:01] Speaker 01:
It's the plaintiff who's the master of his complaint.

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
And a district court cannot supply facts not alleged, cannot manufacture new allegations for a party.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
So there was no error in the district court deciding that he simply didn't state a claim and wasn't entitled to leave to amend to name other individuals.

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
All right, your time has expired unless the panel has additional questions.

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Sylvia Leiden, certified law student, arguing on behalf of plaintiff appellant, Andrew Avila.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
Your Honors, I'd like to begin quickly by just reminding this Court that we're at the screening stage.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
This is an extremely narrow inquiry that this Court has repeatedly characterized as a low burden.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
Everything beyond the four questions contained in the text of Section 1915A are for another day.

[00:20:03] Speaker 02:
Right now, all we're here to determine is whether or not Mr. Avula has pled facts which, taken as true, are sufficient to state a claim that's plausible in its face.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
With this standard in mind, it's clear that Mr. Avula has pled facts that are sufficient to meet the low threshold that is screening.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
His pleadings couldn't be clear that he told defendants that he was going blind, that defendants knew he required surgery for several of his serious eye conditions as early as 2018, and that despite that knowledge, they failed to provide that surgery for years, three to be precise.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
The record is clear on this point.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
While he went blind.

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
Let's say we don't agree with you and say this wasn't enough here and the discussions about Felder's not a doctor, all of this, that if you were given an opportunity

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
to have, why should we give you an opportunity to amend?

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
What more could you show?

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
So first, I would just like to remind the court that Mr. Avila has advanced three plausible theories of deliberate indifference and that one of them doesn't require Felder to have been providing medical care at all.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
Under Estelle, he can be liable just for delaying and denying a surgery he knew was necessary.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
which the record supports.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
That being said, on amendment, Mr. Avila could easily add additional facts to clarify who did what when, including clarifying more about how defendant Felder was gatekeeping the surgery that he knew he needed, contrary to the government's assertions.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
The record is quite clear that defendant Felder did have subjective awareness of Mr. Avila's conditions, the risks associated with them, and what was required.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
He acknowledges as much in his institutional response to Felder's grievance.

[00:21:42] Speaker 05:
Here's a practical question.

[00:21:43] Speaker 05:
It's obvious that Mr. Avila is not very well educated, and this may seem like a simple case to us, but to him, I think it is not.

[00:21:52] Speaker 05:
So let's say we say, well, let's give him another chance.

[00:21:56] Speaker 05:
Is he going to get any help?

[00:21:58] Speaker 05:
I don't know whether your office is in a position to help him redraft or whatever, because one of the problems we're having here, of course, is due to the fact that Mr. Avell is not a sophisticated lawyer.

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
It probably won't get better.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
So we would certainly hope that the district court would appoint counsel below.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
The UCLA Prisoners' Rights Clinic does only handle appeals, but we have had success in pairing clients with pro se counsel before and would certainly be invested in doing so in this case.

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
All right, you're down to a few seconds.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
So you want to wrap it up, bring it home?

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
So we believe that the record is quite clear here that Mr. Avula has done enough for defendant Felder to be served and that if this court is still not persuaded, he should at least be granted leave to amend.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:22:45] Speaker 04:
Thank you both for your arguments.

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
And, you know, as I will say that, you know, I think that

[00:22:54] Speaker 04:
Both sides presented the court with helpful briefing and arguments, and that I'm always amazed that I'm just finishing a week of court.

[00:23:09] Speaker 04:
And I think that the students can be proud to say that they've competed with the competent lawyers this week, and they haven't all been great this week.

[00:23:19] Speaker 04:
So you're welcome back any time.

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you.