Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell

Caution
92 Daily Journal DAR 16790·981 F.2d 1062·1992 WL 365398·24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1392·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32487
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 199291-35651California2,643 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellants are various prison officials who were sued by prisoner Hamilton. Hamilton alleges that while he was in custody the officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The prison officials sought summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment and the defendants now appeal, arguing that there were no issues of material fact which would tend to show that they were deliberately indifferent to Hamilton’s medical needs. We find that only six of the named defendants are proper parties to the action. We affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment with respect to three of these defendants. Per stipulation of Hamilton’s counsel at oral argument, we order the district court to dismiss the rest.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellee Dennis Hamilton was a state prisoner confined to the Fairbanks Correctional Center (“FCC”) in Fairbanks, Alaska. After complaining of recurring problems with his right ear, Hamilton was referred to a private physician, Dr. Richard Rau-gust, who operated on Hamilton’s ear…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.