Claim of Dienske v. Tompkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[defendants’] alleged repeated pattern of neglect” and “repeated delays in providing batteries” for inmate’s hearing aids “could justify an inference of deliberate indifference”
• explaining that the “subjective” requirement of deliberate indifference “requires [Defendants] to have . . . kn[own] that their conduct was inappropriate in light of [a recognized] risk”
• finding a genuine fact issue regarding deliberate indifference where prisoner suffering from hearing loss alleged he was frequently left without functional hearing aids
• crediting the plaintiff’s allegations that a lack of hearing aids “left ‘his daily interactions difficult for over a year’ and ‘impair[ed his] daily activities’”
• noting First Amendment retaliation claim fails without link between adverse action and retaliatory motive
• requiring “direct or indirect” evidence linking any adverse action to the protected conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).