Martinez v. Garden

How courts have described this case

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

• aware of a “substantial risk of serious harm” (quoting Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 1996))
• citation 3 It appears that Plaintiff saw an offsite endocrinologist on January 18, 2021 and February 10, 2021. (Doc. 30, at 25, 26.) omitted
• “Knowledge of [plaintiff inmate’s] medical condition, coupled with the alleged failure to inform him of medical appointments or to arrange transportation, may give rise to an inference that defendants acted with deliberate indifference.”
• “Knowledge of [the plaintiff inmate’s] medical condition, coupled with the alleged failure to inform him of medical appointments or to arrange transportation, may give rise to an inference that defendants acted with deliberate indifference.”
• “[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint . . . is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).