Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Michael J. Riley, Appellant, v. B. J. Rhay et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 407 F.2d 496
February 13, 1969
Michael J. Riley, in pro. per.
John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for appellees.
Before MADDEN,* Judge of the Court of Claims, and BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, an inmate of Washington State Penitentiary, brought this action under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985), alleging that he suffered from histoplasmosis (a form of tuberculosis) and that the refusal of appellees, who are prison officials, to treat his condition violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the complaint without ordering service of process or holding a hearing. It rested its action upon the ground that the prison physician has "complete professional autonomy" in treating his patients.
While it is true that prison medical officials have wide discretion in treating prisoners (Snow v. Gladden, 338 F.2d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1964), it is also well recognized that the failure or refusal to provide medical care may violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Stiltner v. Rhay, 371 F.2d 420, 421 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1967), and authorities cited. Under this rule, the complaint was not insufficient on its face and should not have been dismissed without issuing process and hearing the parties. Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir. 1962). The procedural rights of a prisoner in a case such as this are detailed in Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836, 837 (9th Cir. 1965).
Reversed.