NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 court’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 APPEALS
 2 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. 

Hayes, 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. See 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 from a cell, injuring him severely, and refused to 

treat his persistent pain. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to 
 3 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, 1056-60 (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 consider

consolidating this action and District Court Case No. 1:21-cv-00066-BLW. 

All pending motions and requests are denied. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.