Many of you know about the recent passing of Francisco Castaneda, a former immigration detainee who testified in Congress in October about the 11 months he spent in ICE custody while being denied a biopsy. In case you have not seen it, I am attaching the Washington Post article that discussed Mr. Castaneda's experience in ICE custody, as well as his testimony before the Immigration Subcommittee.
Major congratulations are due to Conal Doyle of WIlloughy Doyle LLP and Adele Kimmel and her colleagues at Public Justice for this stellar opinion issued yesterday by Judge Pregerson in the C.D. Cal. The opinion contains an important legal ruling about the ability of detainees to bring Bivens claims against U.S. Public Health Service personnel for constitutional torts. The opinion also contains a detailed discussion about the lack of care that Mr. Castaneda received, and about the gross abuse this constituted (assuming the alleged facts--which were based on the government's own medical records--are proven at trial).
Some highlights:
p. 29: Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the Public Health Service Defendants "˜purposefully denied him basic and humane medical care for illegal and improper reasons,'" but posit that "[t]his vague and conclusory allegation fails to state any civil rights violation." (Id. 6. (quoting Compl.).) The Court rejects Defendants' attempt to sidestep responsibility for what appears to be, if the evidence holds up, one of the most, if not the most, egregious Eighth Amendment violations the Court has ever encountered.
p. 30: Indeed, the Court finds perplexing the fact that Defendants would try to argue that Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory,given that Plaintiff has submitted thirty-three exhibits of Defendants' own official medical records cocumenting their knowledge of the fact that several physicians had concluded that Plaintiff's lesion was very likely penile cancer, and that he needed a biopsy – a straightforward procedure – to rule cancer out. These documents show that nevertheless, Defendants refused to grant Plaintiff this simple procedure for almost eleven months, even while they noted that his pain and suffering were severe and increasing, that his ***** was emitting blood and discharge, and that a second growth had developed. Therefore, if Plaintiff's evidence proves true, from the first time Castaneda presented with a suspicious lesion in March 2006 through his release in February 2007, the care afforded him by Defendants can be characterized by one word: nothing. The evidence that Plaintiff has already produced at this early stage in the litigation is more thorough and compelling than the complete evidence compiled in some meritorious Eighth Amendment actions. Defendants will surely have an opportunity to contest or refute the evidence presented. But their assertion that Plaintiff's claim is not even cognizable is, frankly, frivolous.
p. 32-33: [T]he evidence that Plaintiff has presented thus far – through Defendants' own records – suggests a strong case for punitive damages because it shows that Defendants' behavior was both callous and misleading. The evidence suggests that they refused Castaneda's request for a biopsy despite their knowledge that several medical specialists suspected cancer and "strongly recommended" a biopsy to rule out that possibility. (Doyle Decl. Ex. 11.) Worse, the evidence suggests that not only did the individual Public Health Service Defendants ignore doctor recommendations to provide Castaneda with a simple procedure, they may also have lied about those recommendations.
p. 35 n.16: Plaintiff has submitted powerful evidence that Defendants knew Castaneda needed a biopsy to rule out cancer, falsely stated that his doctors called the biopsy "elective", and let him suffer in extreme pain for almost one year while telling him to be "patient" and treating him with Ibuprofen, antihistamines, and extra pairs of boxer shorts. Everyone knows cancer is often deadly. Everyone knows that early diagnosis and treatment often saves lives. Everyone knows that if you deny someone the opportunity for an early diagnosis and treatment, you may be - literally - killing the person. Defendants' own records bespeak of conduct that transcends negligence by miles. It bespeaks of conduct that, if true, should be taught to every law student as conduct for which the moniker "cruel" is inadequate.
Add to del.icio.us
