NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL LOZANO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PATRICIA KNUDSON, ET AL. , Defendant s
- Appellees

. No. 15

- 56528
D.C. No. 5:13

- cv
- 143

- JVS

- AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court f

or 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. § 19 83 claim that Defendants were deliberate ly 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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 granting the motion f or 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 . W e vacate and remand. In the circumstances of this case, t he 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 e stablish that Defendants’ deliberate indifference caused his vision
loss. Lozano asked the district court multiple times h o w 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 fi led 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 b lind
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 ca used 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 complex ity 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 if4 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.