Jay G. Kimpel v. ROBERT WALKER, Doctor; P. JAYASUNDARA, N.P.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAY G. KIMPEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT WALKER, Doctor; P.
JAYASUNDARA, N.P.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56296
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01734-LAB-
JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Jay G. Kimpel appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-56296 2
§ 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.
2005). We reverse and remand.
The district court concluded that Kimpel failed to allege either the
deprivation of a serious medical need or that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his needs. However, Kimpel alleged that defendants discontinued
his prescription medication needed to treat serious nerve damage in his arm,
causing him unbearable pain for almost a year; that they found Kimpel’s
consequent suffering to be “funny”; and that they attempted to interfere with
medical treatment Kimpel sought from other doctors. These allegations are
sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that
prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk); Jett v. Penner,
439 F.3d 1091, 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2006) (two month delay in receiving
treatment for fractured thumb and nineteen-month delay in being seen by hand
specialist, causing pain and diminished use of hand, is sufficient to state deliberate
indifference claim); see also Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1072 (at the pleading stage,
allegations in plaintiff’s complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light
most favorable to him).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-56296 3
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
our disposition.
Kimpel’s pending requests for action in his case are denied as moot.
Kimpel’s motions for copies of court papers are denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --