Brinson v. Ramos

Type

Opinion of the Court

Author

Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain

Filed

June 13, 2002

Case

Brinson v. Ramos

Case status

Decided

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** David Brinson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they effectively interfered with his access to medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We reverse and remand. Brinson alleged officials refused to postpone his transfer to another prison, knowing such a transfer would delay his scheduled surgery for a painful and disfiguring separated shoulder. To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, a prisoner must allege officials acted to “deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment” in a manner constituting “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). Accepting his allegations of material fact as true, and construing them in the light most favorable to him, we conclude Brinson has sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Se…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.