Rickey Egberto v. Nevada Dep't. of Corrections, 678 F. App'x 500

Rickey Egberto, an incarcerated plaintiff, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Nevada Department of Corrections was immune and dismissed.
Egberto alleged four types of mistreatment: a five‑month delay in a recommended MRI; refusal to provide back surgery; denial of prescribed spinal injections and adequate medication; and confiscation of a prescribed walker.
Objective medical records and evaluations described chronic, severe back pain and imaging showing progressive disc involvement; treating doctors recommended MRI, injections, medication, and walker.
The MRI recommended in February 2006 was not performed until July 2006; an MRI appointment was cancelled due to a transfer that coincided suspiciously with an ostensibly unrelated court appearance.
There is no clear evidence that surgery was medically necessary at the time; by contrast, records support that injections, medication, and the walker were recommended but not provided.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims and alternatively found qualified immunity; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for trial on several issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Delay in MRI	Transfer canceled MRI and delayed diagnostic care, causing worsening disc involvement	Delay unexplained but not shown to cause further harm or attributable to bad faith	Reversed as to MRI: triable issues on delay, motive, and resulting harm; jury question
Denial of back surgery	Surgery was needed per evaluations	Surgery was not established as medically necessary	Affirmed: no evidence surgery was clearly required
Denial of recommended spinal injections	Doctor ordered injections; never administered	No direct explanation for non‑provision presented	Reversed: disputed fact whether recommended injections were ignored for non‑medical reasons
Denial of adequate medication	Treating physicians recommended meds; provided regimen was inadequate and delayed	Officials claim they were developing a safe regimen	Reversed: evidence supports a dispute over adequacy and deliberate indifference
Confiscation of walker	Walker prescribed and used; confiscated after transfer without intervening infractions	Defendants asserted security justification for confiscation	Reversed: jury could infer confiscation was not medically justified and was deliberate
Qualified immunity	Officials knew ignoring prescribed treatment violates Eighth Amendment	Defendants claim no clearly established violation	Rejected: law clearly established that denying/ignoring prescribed care can violate Eighth Amendment; immunity inappropriate at summary judgment

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for prisoners)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (context for Eighth Amendment protections)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (definitions of "serious medical need")
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective deliberate indifference standard)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (animus or non‑medical motives can show deliberate indifference)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (ignoring prior physician's orders may show deliberate indifference)
Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (following treating physician's instructions re: medication and equipment)
Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037 (denial of treatment standards)
Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (qualified immunity framework in prison medical contexts)
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (summary judgment credibility inferences)