Hartsel v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, where plaintiff favored root canal over extraction, plaintiff raised “merely . . . a disagreement over the proper course of his treatment and thus failed to allege a reckless disregard with respect to his dental care”
• holding no deliberate indifference where inmate was denied a root canal and his tooth was extracted
• noting that “[a]lthough [plaintiff] may have preferred a different course of treatment, his preference alone cannot establish deliberate indifference as such second-guessing is not the province of the courts”
• finding that the district court properly disposed of inmate’s Eighth Amendment claim because the “allegations merely amounted to a disagreement over the proper course of [inmate’s] treatment and thus failed to allege a reckless disregard with respect to his...care”
• “Although James may have preferred a different course of treatment, his preference alone cannot establish deliberate indifference as such second-guessing is not the province of the courts.”
• failure to allege an Eighth Amendment claim against a dentist who provided timely care, with no indication the dentist’s decision was based on anything beyond routine patient care.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).