Case ID: f-appx_609/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LaKeith L. McCOY, aka LaKeith LeRoy McCoy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. GARIKAPARTHI, M.D. at CCI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17387.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed July 2, 2015.
    Lakeith L. McCoy, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner LaKeith L. McCoy, a.k.a. LaKeith LeRoy McCoy, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii>). We reverse and remand.

Dismissal of McCoy’s Eighth Amendment claims arising from the deprivation of adequate food was premature. McCoy’s allegations, liberally construed, were “sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.2012); see also Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir.2009) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if the official was aware of a substantial risk to the inmate’s health or safety and deliberately disregarded the risk).

We do not consider McCoy’s contentions regarding an equal protection claim because McCoy was granted leave to amend this claim but he did not reallege it in the operative first amended complaint.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.