Opinion ID: 788501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiently culpable state of mind

Text: 18 The district court found an issue of fact as to when [the individual] Defendants knew the nature and duration of Plaintiff's abdominal pain, when they had reason to believe that Plaintiff required medical attention, and the length of the delay between such knowledge and Plaintiff's evaluation by a nurse. (J.A. 220, Opinion at 6). We agree. Here, Blackmore alleges that he began to complain of stomach pain within an hour of his arrival in the early morning hours on Saturday, May 27. It is undisputed that Sergeant's Log entries at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday evening and at some point on Monday morning describe Blackmore as having sharp abdominal pain. Other undisputed facts are that Blackmore was given antacids by non-medical prison officials, that Blackmore vomited, that he was placed in an observation cell, and that he did not receive any medical attention until 6:00 a.m. on Monday morning, over fifty hours after his arrest. 19 Viewing these facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, we conclude that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants were aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and the Defendants ignored that risk. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Thus, we agree with the district court that a material factual dispute exists on whether Defendants had a sufficiently culpable state of mind under the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference test.