Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District Judge. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen W. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Defendants-Appellees. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRESTON SHIIRA, No. Shiira has not shown a genuine issue of material fact as to deliberate indifference.FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. Shiira's argument that the Defendants' conduct violated the Hawaii Pain Patient's Bill of Rights, a state law providing advisory guidelines, speak to whether there was a federal constitutional violation.įor the foregoing reasons, the district court's summary judgment ruling is affirmed, as Mr. Shiira's expert testified that withholding all medication would fall below the applicable standards of medical care, the expert did not testify that offering alternative pain medications would be medically inappropriate. Shiira admits that he declined the other pain medication treatments, and while Mr. 825, 837 (1994).īy itself, a failure to administer narcotic pain medication does not constitute a constitutional violation, particularly where, as here, both over-the-counter pain medication and treatment for potential detoxification symptoms are offered. Shiira has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants were aware of his serious medical need and consciously disregarded an excessive risk of harm when they refused to provide him with his prescription pain medication. Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Shiira does not specifically maintain that any of the Defendant nurses personally witnessed his severe pain and ignored it. Shiira to be suffering to the extent that he claims. Shiira's incarceration indicate that none of the Defendants observed Mr. Shiira's assertions that he was in severe pain during his incarceration to be true. was unable to sleep and was unable to walk due to the pain was experiencing." For the purposes of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Shiira states that he "experienced nausea, vomiting, terrible stomach pains. 2004) ("Under a deliberate indifference analysis, we inquire whether 'the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.'" (alterations omitted) (quoting Gibson v. Shiira could not fulfill the second prong because he had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendant nurses were aware of and consciously disregarded an excessive risk of harm from his pain. However, the district court also held that Mr. Shiira's chronic pain condition constituted a serious medical need. The second prong is satisfied by "showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference." Id. Ī successful claim of deliberate indifference based on inadequate medical care requires (1) that "the plaintiff must show a 'serious medical need' by demonstrating that 'failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'" and (2) "the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent." Jett v. The Eighth Amendment was made "applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" Baze v. He asserts that their conduct amounted to a violation of his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Shiira his prescription pain medications, methadone and Percodan. Shiira contends that the three Defendant nurses at the Kauai Community Correctional Center ("KCCC") were each deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need when they denied Mr. We review de novo a district court's summary judgment ruling. Preston Shiira appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees on his § 1983 claim. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding Submitted NovemSan Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District Judge. 1:14-cv-00124-HG-KSC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |