Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened Martin J. Bibbs's first amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and found a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Devine. The court allowed the action to proceed based on allegations that Dr. Devine cancelled recommended medical treatment, diagnostic imaging, and specialist follow-up, and stated that a separate service order would issue.
Holdings
- The first amended complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Devine based on the alleged cancellation of medically recommended MRI testing, specialist follow-up, and surgery.
- The allegations, when liberally construed, were sufficient at the screening stage to allege more than negligence, malpractice, or a mere disagreement over treatment.
Questions Presented
- Whether the first amended complaint plausibly alleged an objectively serious medical need and deliberate indifference to that need under the Eighth Amendment.
- Whether Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief were subject to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (19)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-106 (1976)(followed)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)(followed)
- Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987-988 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…