Holestine

Holestine v. Harding

Good Law
51 F. App'x 727
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 26, 2002No. 02-15091; D.C. No. CV-99-05200-PJHCalifornia272 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*728 MEMORANDUM **

Appellee/Plaintiff Ernest Kelly Holes-tine (“Holestine”), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when prison officials failed to treat his hepatitis C condition.

Appellants/Defendants Cal Terhune, et al. (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment on their qualified immunity claim. Additionally, Appellants request that defendants Terhune, Harding and McGrath be dismissed from the action because they were not individually involved with Holestine’s medical treatment.

Medical treatment in the prison context violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and gives rise to Section 1983 liability only if the prisoner is deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” and the conduct complained of constitutes “deliberate indifference” to the “serious medical needs” of the prisoner. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir.2002) (citations omitted).

The district court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Holestine and did not err in denying qualified immunity to Appellants. See Robinson v.…

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.