Case Name: Michael E. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-22
Citations: 513 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 11-16888
Parties: Michael E. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
Michael E. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16888.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 22, 2013.
Michael E. Chavez, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Michael E. Chavez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 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 and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Chavez's ADA claim because Chavez failed to allege any denial of service based on his disability. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir.2002).
However, liberally construed, the allegations in Chavez's pro se complaint were "sufficient to meet the low threshold for proceeding past the screening stage" where Chavez alleged that defendants were aware of Chavez's severe pain and refused to treat it. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir.2012); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (discussing objective and subjective elements of deliberate indifference claim). Accordingly, we reverse in part the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Chavez's request for appointment of counsel on remand is denied.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.