Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7894
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- In April 2012 inmate Fleet C. Hamby suffered an umbilical hernia at Stafford Creek Corrections Center; it was described as small and easily reducible and managed with a hernia belt and instructions for manual reduction.
- Hamby reported intermittent but chronic pain, sought surgical repair in June 2012, and repeatedly renewed requests; prison medical staff and a Care Review Committee (CRC) denied surgery as not medically necessary and chose watchful waiting.
- Hamby filed a § 1983 suit (personal-capacity claims against Dr. Hammond, Dr. Smith, and Secretary Warner; official-capacity claims against Hammond and Warner) alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; a preliminary injunction later ordered surgical evaluation and Hamby received repair in October 2014.
- After surgery Hamby sought damages for the period before the injunction; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the merits (no deliberate indifference) and, alternatively, on qualified immunity; Hamby appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held defendants entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not place beyond debate that the non-surgical course (watchful waiting for a reducible hernia) violated the Eighth Amendment; the court also affirmed denial of injunctive relief on Hamby’s possible inguinal hernia claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent by denying surgical referral for Hamby’s reducible umbilical hernia | Hamby: refusal to refer for surgery caused prolonged, unnecessary pain and amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Defendants: relied on bona fide medical judgment that watchful waiting was medically acceptable for a reducible, non‑incarcerated hernia | Held: Not clearly established that denying surgical referral in these facts violated the Eighth Amendment; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether the right violated was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes | Hamby: the general right to be free from deliberate indifference is long established; specific surgical entitlement need not be "directly on point" | Defendants: precedent must make the unlawfulness of their specific conduct beyond debate; many cases upheld non‑surgical management of reducible hernias | Held: Court applied the fact‑specific clearly established test and found precedent did not place defendants’ conduct beyond debate |
| Whether district-court denial of injunctive relief for an alleged inguinal hernia was erroneous | Hamby: sought permanent injunction to require diagnosis/treatment if pain recurs | Defendants: Hamby’s inguinal pain had subsided; no evidence of medically unacceptable treatment or deliberate indifference | Held: Affirmed — no material dispute showing medically unacceptable treatment or conscious disregard of risk |
| Whether Secretary Warner is liable for systemic deficiencies | Hamby: Warner ignored systemic problems in healthcare approval process | Warner: lacks evidence he oversaw a system that indisputably violated the Eighth Amendment; no basis for supervisory liability | Held: No sufficient evidence; Warner not vicariously or supervisoryly liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity standard re: objective reasonableness)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference framework)
- al‑Kidd v. Ashcroft, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law requires particularized precedent)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (clearly established inquiry must be fact‑specific)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (difference of medical opinion not deliberate indifference)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard in medical‑care cases)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference defined as denying, delaying, or intentionally interfering with medical treatment)