NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL LOZANO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v. 

PATRICIA KNUDSON, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-56528

D.C. No. 5:13-cv-143-JVS-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Central District of California,

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017

Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,** District Judge.

California state prisoner Manuel Lozano appeals from the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant jail officials and doctors 

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights. We review the order

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 13 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

granting the motion for summary judgment de novo. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. 

& Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand. 

In the circumstances of this case, the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment in favor of Defendants without considering Lozano’s causation 

evidence. Throughout the litigation, Lozano, who was proceeding pro se, made 

clear to the district court that a declaration from his treating ophthalmologist was 

necessary to establish that Defendants’ deliberate indifference caused his vision 

loss. Lozano asked the district court multiple times how to obtain a declaration, 

but the court never provided an answer. He nonetheless filed his medical records 

with the district court, including the notes of his treating ophthalmologist, which 

the district court acknowledged and “lodged.”

In the report and recommendation on the motion for summary judgment, the 

magistrate judge did not consider the medical evidence filed with the court because 

Lozano did not cite it in his memorandum. The magistrate judge informed Lozano 

that in order to raise an issue of material fact as to causation, he needed to file and 

cite to evidence such as his medical records. But because Lozano had already filed 

all of his medical records with the court, he could have reasonably believed that 

those records were insufficient and that it would have been fruitless to file them 

again in conjunction with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 
 3 

Lozano’s medical records, if considered, may well have enabled Lozano to 

establish a genuine issue of material fact as to causation. The medical records 

showed a six-month delay in Lozano’s glaucoma treatment and that he was first 

diagnosed with partial blindness immediately after that delay. Lozano’s treating 

ophthalmologist remarked in Lozano’s medical records that he was partially blind 

and that her plan for Lozano’s glaucoma treatment was “not followed[] [a]t all.” 

See Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1168 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (“[P]laintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that the defendant’s 

conduct caused some harm suffered by the plaintiffs. . . . [But a plaintiff] doesn’t 

have to offer evidence which positively excludes every other possible cause of the 

[injury].” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see 

also Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1438 (9th Cir. 1989) (applying tort 

causation factors in the civil rights context). 

Due to the case’s complexity and Lozano’s confusion on the procedural 

requirements, we vacate and remand with the instruction that the district court 

allow Lozano to cure technical deficiencies in his filings. Walters v. Young, 100 

F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]his court has long sought to ensure that pro se

litigants do not unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that they may,

with some assistance from the court, be able to satisfy.”). We strongly urge the 

district court to appoint pro bono counsel to represent Lozano going forward if 
 4 

such counsel is available. If current pro bono counsel is able and willing to accept 

the assignment (which, we realize, may not be practical), they should advise the 

district court following issuance of the mandate by this court.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Costs are to be taxed against the defendants-appellees.