Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

HUI v. CASTANEDA 

Opinion of the Court 

I 

Francisco Castaneda was detained by U. S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the San Diego Correc-
tional  Facility  (SDCF)  beginning  in  March  2006.    Accord-
ing to the complaint later filed in the District Court, when
Castaneda arrived at SDCF he had on his penis an irregu-
lar,  raised  lesion  that  measured  roughly  two  centimeters 
square.1  Castaneda promptly brought his condition to the 
attention of medical personnel working for the Division of
Immigration  Health  Services,  reporting  that  the  lesion 
was growing in size and becoming more painful and that it 
frequently  bled  and  emitted  a  discharge.  Petitioner  Dr. 
Esther  Hui,  a  civilian  PHS  employee,  was  the  physician
responsible for Castaneda’s medical care during his deten-
tion at SDCF.  Petitioner Commander Stephen Gonsalves,
a  commissioned  PHS  officer,  was  a  Health  Services  Ad-
ministrator at SDCF during the relevant period. 

Between  March  2006  and  January  2007,  Castaneda
persistently  sought  treatment  for  his  condition.    As  his 
disease progressed, the lesion became increasingly painful 
and  interfered  with  his  urination,  defecation,  and  sleep. 
In  December  2006,  Castaneda  additionally  reported  a 
lump in his groin.  A PHS physician’s assistant and three 
outside  specialists  repeatedly  advised  that  Castaneda 
needed  a  biopsy  to  ascertain  whether  he  had  cancer. 
Petitioners  denied  requests  for  a  biopsy  and  other  recom-
mended  procedures  as  “elective.”    App.  244,  249–251.
Instead,  Castaneda  was  treated  with  ibuprofen  and  anti-
biotics and was given an additional ration of boxer shorts. 
After a fourth specialist recommended a biopsy in Janu-
ary 2007, the procedure was finally authorized.  Instead of 
providing  treatment,  however,  ICE  released  Castaneda 

—————— 

1 Because this case comes to  us on petitioners’ motion to dismiss, we 
assume the truth of respondents’ factual allegations.  See Fitzgerald v. 
Barnstable School Comm., 555 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1).