Case Name: Melvin Andrew JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve LOPEZ, P T, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Citations: 465 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 10-56325
Parties: Melvin Andrew JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve LOPEZ, P T, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Melvin Andrew JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve LOPEZ, P T, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 10-56325.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
Melvin Andrew Jones, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
Randall Raymond Murphy, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Melvin Andrew Jones, a civilly committed patient at a California state hospital, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We reverse and remand.
The district court granted summary judgment to Lopez on the ground that Jones offered no evidence showing that Lopez intentionally struck him. We disagree. In his verified brief opposing summary judgment, Jones stated that Lopez struck him in the mouth and that Lopez acted deliberately. The district court also failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Jones when it speculated that Lopez may have inadvertently struck Jones in the mouth. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Jones's remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and his status as a civilly committed individual, are unpersuasive.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.