Hamby v. Hammond, No. 15-35283 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an inmate, fell off of a ladder while working his prison job as an electrician’s assistant. A prison medical professional diagnosed him as having an umbilical hernia. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the prison officials to refer him to a surgeon for evaluation and to authorize surgical treatment. Plaintiff consequently received umbilical hernia surgery. Then plaintiff sought damages for the pain he suffered because of the prison officials' refusal to authorize the surgery prior to litigation. The court concluded that the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity where, even when the facts are viewed most favorably to plaintiff, it is at least debatable that the prison officials complied with the Eighth Amendment. To the extent the officials played any role in the decision to deny the umbilical hernia surgery, the record makes clear that they did so based on legitimate medical opinions that have often been held reasonable under the Eighth Amendment. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief relating to his potential inguinal hernia because plaintiff failed to provide evidence suggesting that the prison officials' decision to forgo surgery at this time is medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the officials chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in an action brought by a prison inmate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they refused to grant his request for hernia surgery. Plaintiff received surgery for his umbilical hernia after the district court granted his motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered prison officials to refer him to a surgeon for evaluation and possible surgical treatment. After receiving surgery, plaintiff sought damages for the pain he allegedly suffered because of the officials’ refusal to authorize surgery prior to litigation. The panel held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity because in light of existing precedent and the specific facts of this case, it was at least debatable that they complied with the Eighth Amendment. The panel determined that to the extent that the officials played any role in the decision to deny surgery, the record made clear that they did so based on legitimate medical HAMBY V. HAMMOND 3 opinions that have often been held reasonable under the Eighth Amendment. The panel held that the district court properly denied injunctive relief relating to plaintiff’s potential inguinal hernia. The panel determined that plaintiff had not pointed to evidence which suggested that defendants’ decision to forgo surgery for the potential inguinal hernia was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and made in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Gould concurred only with the majority opinion’s result regarding the denial of injunctive relief pertaining to plaintiff’s potential inguinal hernia, and dissented from the rest of the majority opinion. Judge Gould stated that there was a genuine issue of material fact on whether the course of treatment the doctors chose in treating plaintiff’s umbilical hernia was medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and whether they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.