Cleolis Hunt v. Dental Department

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a dispute of fact prevented summary judgment on deliberate indifference where a grievance form could have put defendant on notice to plaintiff’s request for treatment
• concluding that inmate’s complaints about harm they experienced from prison officials’ actions established disputed issue of fact as to whether treatment was medically acceptable
• holding that it is beyond debate that prison official acts with deliberate indifference when official denies medical care to prisoner exhibiting serious symptoms of pain or disease
• holding that deliberate indifference could reasonably be found where a delay in treating a prisoner’s dental condition was deliberate and resulted in the prisoner’s suffering “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” (citations omitted)
• holding that prison administrators who “played [no] 6 | role in denying [the prisoner] medical care . . . cannot be held vicariously liable for the fault of 7 | [medical] personnel at [the prison].”
• finding that a three- 27 month delay in treatment created a genuine issue of material fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).