Home      Login

Abstract: 

Our regular review of federal appellate rulings includes three cases: The Seventh Circuit held that a prison health services manager could not be held liable for deliberate indifference where he neither participated in the prisoner’s treatment nor had authority over treatment decisions or reason to believe the prisoner was receiving inadequate care (Rodriguez Ruiz v. Weinman, 2025 WL 2888001 (7th Cir.)). A Virginia federal district court dismissed a prisoner’s claims arising from alleged exposure to black mold and inadequate medical treatment because he failed to establish harmful mold exposure, a causal connection between mold and his symptoms, or deliberate indifference by prison officials (Cheeks v. Hamilton, 2025 WL 3033740 (W.D. Va.)). The Tenth Circuit held that jail officers were entitled to qualified immunity for delays in obtaining dental care because existing precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct was unconstitutional where responsibility for scheduling rested with others, the officers believed the earliest available appointment had been scheduled, and they obtained emergency care when necessary (Jarvis v. Liggett, 2026 WL 1674796 (10th Cir.)).

Keywords: Deliberate Indifference; Correctional Healthcare; Environmental Exposure; Dental Care; Qualified Immunity; Eighth Amendment

Affiliations:  1: Contributing Editor.