NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAY CHRIS OLSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; MEDICAL CORIZON SECURITY STAFF, Named and unnamed individuals in their official and individual capacity, Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 35583
D.C. No. 1:20

- cv - 00396

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2022 * *
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Idaho state prisoner Jay Chris Olson appeals pro se from the district c ourt’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 35583

and excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Haye s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand. The district court dismissed Olson’s action because Olson did not name any individual defendant in the caption of the amended complaint. However, Olson identified individual defendants in the body of the amended complaint

. S ee Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary , 720 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1983) ( “[T]he question of whether a defendant is properly in a case is not resolved by merely reading the caption of a complaint

. Rather, a party may be properly in a case if the allegations in the body of the complaint make it plain that the party is intended as a defendant.” ). Moreover, after dismissal, Olson attempted to file an amended caption curing the deficiencies , and on appeal, Olson again clarifies that the defendants are Sgt. David Gould, Sgt. Hammer, C.O. Wishman, C.O. Comacho, C.O. Marmenti, C.O. Varela, C.O. Fugi, Nurse Julie, Nurse Steve, Tonya McMillian, Celia Worley, and Summer Eldridge. In his amended complaint, Olson alleged that these defendants improperly treated his medical condition, refused his request for a wheelchair, pepper sprayed him twice in the face while he posed no threat, denied him decontamination procedures, used excessive force to remove him fr om a cell, injuring him severely, and refused to treat his persistent pain. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to3 21

- 35583

warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012) ; see also Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 5

- 7 (1992) ( setting forth elements of an excessive force claim in the prison context ); Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 105 6

- 60 (9th Cir. 2004) ( setting forth elements of a medical deliberate indifference claim )

. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should conside r consolidating this action and District Court Case No. 1:21

- cv - 00066

- BLW

. All pending motions and requests are denied.
REVERSED and REMA NDED .