Combs v. Wash. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Boles v. Colo. Dep't of Corr.

    Civil Action 19-cv-01158-RMR-STV (D. Colo. Jul. 12, 2024)

    ; Combs v. Washington State, No. C12-5280 RBL, 2014 WL 4293960, at *13 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2014) (dismissing civil rights claims against volunteer prison chaplain whose “only involvement was providing ecclesiastical advice about Jewish-related matters, including kosher dietary standards,” and was therefore not a “state actor”), aff'd, 660 Fed.Appx. 515 (9th Cir. 2016);

  2. Moore v. Firth

    CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00900-BAT (W.D. Wash. Jul. 10, 2020)

    Based on the materials presented and viewing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the court concludes that Defendants' course of treatment - reducing the hernia, providing pain medication, and watchful waiting - was not an unreasonable course of treatment. See, e.g., Hamby v. Hammond, Case No. 3:14-CV-05065-RBL, 2015 WL 1263253 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2015) (Judge Leighton), aff'd, 821 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (prison officials did not pursue a medically unreasonable course of treatment when they declined to refer an inmate for surgical evaluation of a reducible umbilical hernia, even if they were aware inmate was in chronic pain); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1014-15 (7th Cir. 2006); Cox v. Jackson, 579 F. Supp. 2d 831 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (denying preliminary injunction for surgical repair of abdominal hernia); Combs v. Washington State, et al., Case No. 12-5280-RBL, 2014 WL 4293960, at *26 (W.D. Aug. 29, 2014) (Judge Leighton); Brandon v. Albert, No. C10-360-JCC, 2010 WL 6613108, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2010) (strategy of watchful waiting for inguinal hernia did not violate Eighth Amendment), adopted by 2011 WL 1753778 (May 9, 2011); Foxley v. Cristman, C06-0114-RSL, 2007 WL 171902, (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2007) (same); Rossi v. Nev. Dep't of Corr., 390 Fed App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2010); Anderson v. Bales, No. C12-2244, 2013 WL 1278122, (7th Cir. 2013) (no deliberate indifference based on failure to provide hernia surgery for reducible hernia); Brown v. Beard, 445 Fed App'x 453, 455-56 (3rd Cir. 2011) (inmate did not state an Eighth Amendment claim for failing to provide surgery for reducible hernia); Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Pa. Dep't of Corr., 441 Fed App'x 919, 923-24 (3rd Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim based on failure to operate on hernia until it became strangulated); Webb v. Hamidullah, 281 Fed App'x 159 (4th Cir. 2008); Horton v. Ward, 123 Fed App'x 368, 373

  3. Rademaker v. Paramo

    Case No.: 17-cv-02406-JLB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Although the spoiled produce was part of the Kosher Diet Program, and not "extra," Plaintiff has not provided any evidence establishing that without the fresh produce, he was served a diet that was inadequate to sustain his health. See id.; Combs v. Washington, No. C12-5280 RBL, 2014 WL 4293960, at *20 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2014) ("[Plaintiff] provides no admissible evidence to raise a material issue of fact on the nutritional adequacy of the Kosher Diet at CRCC. [Plaintiff]'s claim . . . is based on nothing more than speculation . . . .").

  4. Cottrell v. Igbinosa

    Case No. 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2017)

    However, "[m]edical articles may only be admitted as substantive evidence if the statement is established to be from a reliable medical authority and is relied upon by a medical expert witness" and "must also be authenticated before it can be admissible." Combs v. Washington State, No. C12-5280 RBL, 2014 WL 4293960, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2014), aff d sub nom. Combs v. Washington, 660 F. App'x 515 (9th Cir. 2016).