Miguel Perez v. James Fenoglio
- Decided
- July 7, 2015
- Docket
- 12-3084
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,534 timesAbrogated on other grounds (verified)Abrogated on other grounds (verified) · MUHAMMAD v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON
What later courts said
- concluding that pro se litigant stated claim for deliberate indifference against prison nurse who knew of severe injury but failed to provide medical treatment or seek help from others — Jill Otis v. Kayla J. Demarasse (2018)
- concluding that an inmate’s “ten-month delay” in receiving “meaningful treatment” stated a claim for deliberate indifference — Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael (2026)
- holding that policies “capable of causing delays in treatment” warrant denial of defendant Wexford’s motion for summary judgment — Daniels v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.
Miguel Perez, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prison officials alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. According to his pro se complaint, prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his severe hand injury, delaying his receipt of medically necessary surgery for ten months. This delay caused Perez needless pain and suffering and left him with permanent loss of hand functioning. The district court, after denying Perez’s request for pro bono counsel, screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed it sua sponte, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. This appeal followed.
We find that the district court’s dismissal of Perez’s claims was premature. Liberally construed, Perez’s pro se complaint states valid Eighth Amendment claims against members of the prison’s medical staff and various grievance officials. It also states, by way of an attached grievance, a valid First Amendment retaliation claim. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Miguel Perez v. James Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (2015)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.