“The seventh graders were pretty excited to see the other half of the grade. English Department co-chair Faye Takushi took on one section of seventh graders. Classrooms needed more desks and a few teachers picked up new sections to teach. All students, PreK-12, will be fully in-person for the 2021-2022 school year.” To accommodate this change, classrooms and student cohorts had to be modified. In addition to a new artificial lawn by the senior pavilion and sleek new cafeteria doors, seventh through ninth grade students were back on campus together instead of being split up into Alpha-Omega groups.Īs announced via email by HBA President Ron Shiira, “iddle school students will be returning to campus in-person 5 days a week beginning 4th quarter. Shiira’s argument that the Defendants’ conduct violated the Hawaii Pain Patient’sīill of Rights, a state law providing advisory guidelines, speak to whether thereįor the foregoing reasons, the district court’s summary judgment ruling isĪffirmed, as Mr.When school resumed after spring break, there were many changes on campus. Shiira’s expert testified that withholding all medication would fall below theĪpplicable standards of medical care, the expert did not testify that offeringĪlternative pain medications would be medically inappropriate. Shiira admits that he declined the other pain medication treatments, and while Mr. Medication and treatment for potential detoxification symptoms are offered. See Farmer v.īy itself, a failure to administer narcotic pain medication does not constituteĪ constitutional violation, particularly where, as here, both over-the-counter pain They refused to provide him with his prescription pain medication. Serious medical need and consciously disregarded an excessive risk of harm when Genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants were aware of his Record in the light most favorable to Mr. Nurses personally witnessed his severe pain and ignored it. Shiira does not specifically maintain that any of the Defendant Shiira to be suffering to the extent that he claims.įurthermore, Mr. Shiira’s incarceration indicate that none of theĭefendants observed Mr. Shiira’sĪssertions that he was in severe pain during his incarceration to be true. View the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. To the pain was experiencing.” For the purposes of summary judgment, we was unable to sleep and was unable to walk due Shiira states that he “experienced nausea, vomiting, terrible stomach Safety.’” (alterations omitted) (quoting Gibson v. Prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and 2004) (“Under a deliberate indifference analysis, we inquire whether ‘the The second prong because he had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material factĪs to whether the Defendant nurses were aware of and consciously disregarded anĮxcessive risk of harm from his pain. However, the district court also held that Mr. Shiira’s chronic pain condition constituted a serious Possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. 35, 47 (2008).īy “showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or The second prong is satisfiedġ The Eighth Amendment was made “applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” Baze v. Significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’” and (2) “theĭefendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett v. His Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.1Ī successful claim of deliberate indifference based on inadequate medicalĬare requires (1) that “the plaintiff must show a ‘serious medical need’ byĭemonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further He asserts that their conduct amounted to a violation of Shiira his prescription pain medications, Shiira contends that the three Defendant nurses at the Kauai CommunityĬorrectional Center (“KCCC”) were each deliberately indifferent to his serious We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment ruling. Preston Shiira appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to theĭefendants-Appellees on his § 1983 claim. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted November 16, 2017** San Francisco, Californiaīefore: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District Judge. 1:14-cv-00124-HG-KSCĪppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen W. FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |