DeCambra v. Director Ted Sakai, Department of Public Safety

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJune 3, 2014
DocketSCPW-13-0005657
StatusPublished

This text of DeCambra v. Director Ted Sakai, Department of Public Safety (DeCambra v. Director Ted Sakai, Department of Public Safety) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DeCambra v. Director Ted Sakai, Department of Public Safety, (haw 2014).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0005657 03-JUN-2014 10:18 AM

SCPW-13-0005657

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

JOHN DeCAMBRA, Petitioner,

vs.

DIRECTOR TED SAKAI, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Ochiai, in place of Acoba, J., recused.)

Upon consideration of petitioner John DeCambra’s “Writ

of Habeas Corpus”, filed on November 25, 2013, which we review as

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the respondent Director

of the Department of Public Safety’s answer to the petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, filed on March 27, 2014, the respective

supporting documents submitted thereto, and the record, it

appears that respondent’s actions do not amount to a deliberate

indifference to petitioner’s medical need. Petitioner,

therefore, is not entitled to the requested habeas corpus relief.

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976) (to establish a

constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment predicated upon

the failure to provide medical treatment, an inmate must show

(1) a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that failure to

treat the condition could result in further significant injury or

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and (2) the prison

official’s response to the medical need was deliberately

indifferent to the prisoner’s medical need); Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (deliberate indifference exists when a

prison official knows an inmate faces a substantial risk of

serious harm to his health and fails to take reasonable measures

to abate the risk); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.

2000) (deliberate indifference is shown by a purposeful act or

failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need,

and harm caused by the indifference). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 3, 2014

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Dean E. Ochiai

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
DeCambra v. Director Ted Sakai, Department of Public Safety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decambra-v-director-ted-sakai-department-of-public-haw-2014.