Opinion
20-16836
07-21-2021
SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JIMINEZ, Sergeant at Kern Valley State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California No. 1:19-cv-00068-AWI-BAM Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
California state prisoner Shauntae Taylor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Taylor's excessive force claim for failure to state a claim. However, Taylor alleged that defendants acted with malice when inflicting unnecessary injury and harm through the use of excessive force, including deploying a grenade inside his cell and seriously beating him without provocation. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-7 (1992) (explaining the elements of an excessive force claim in the prison context); Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep't, 885 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff's allegation that defendants "beat the crap out of [him]" was sufficient to state an excessive force claim).
The district court dismissed Taylor's deliberate indifference claim for failure to state a claim. However, Taylor alleged that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to treat his swollen left eye following a physical altercation with defendants. Liberally construed, these allegations "are sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer." Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference standard).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Taylor's request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.