Case Name: Shawn ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris KRPAN; Michael Foster, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-02
Citations: 659 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 15-15974
Parties: Shawn ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris KRPAN; Michael Foster, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before; LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 659
Pages: 455–455

Head Matter:
Shawn ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris KRPAN; Michael Foster, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15974
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 02, 2016
Shawn Anderson, Pro Se
Before; LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shawn Anderson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We reverse and remand.
Dismissal of Anderson's action was premature because Anderson alleged that defendants failed to provide and delayed medical treatment for Anderson's ankle. Liberally construed, these allegations in the amended complaint were "sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer." Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1116; see also id. at 1122 (denying or delaying medical treatment can amount to deliberate indifference; a prisoner need not show his harm was substantial); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,