Case Name: Norris Virgil LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALLESTEROS, Licensed Vocational Nurse at Corcoran State Hospital, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-10
Citations: 548 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: No. 12-17543
Parties: Norris Virgil LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALLESTEROS, Licensed Vocational Nurse at Corcoran State Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 466–467

Head Matter:
Norris Virgil LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALLESTEROS, Licensed Vocational Nurse at Corcoran State Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-17543.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 10, 2013.
Norris Virgil Lee, Visalia, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
California state prisoner Norris Virgil Lee appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We reverse and remand.
The district court erred in dismissing Lee's action because Lee alleged that, despite his repeated pleas, defendant consciously and deliberately disregarded a serious risk to his health arising from diabetes by refusing to administer his prescribed and regularly scheduled insulin injection. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 845, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference when they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; prisoner need not await a tragic event before obtaining relief for being exposed to danger).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.