Case Name: Daniel M. COSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew NANGALAMA; Hale, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-21
Citations: 669 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 15-15397
Parties: Daniel M. COSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew NANGALAMA; Hale, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Daniel M. COSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew NANGALAMA; Hale, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15397
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 2016
Filed September 21, 2016
Daniel M. Coston, Corcoran, CA, Pro Se.
Shanan L. Hewitt, Jesse Manuel Rivera, Jill Brockman Nathan, Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA.
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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 Daniel M. Co-ston appeals pro se from the district court's judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in 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. Krechman v. County of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013). We vacate and remand.
The district court erred by concluding that judgment as a matter of law was proper on the basis of Costoris failure to provide evidence establishing defendants' deliberate indifference because the district court did not give Coston a Rule 50(a) notice prior to dismissal. See Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1996) (under Rule 50, trial court has a responsibility to inform the non-moving party of deficiencies in its proof and to afford that party an opportunity to correct any such deficiency); see also Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to give Rule 50(a) notice to pro se litigant constitutes per se reversible error without regard to prejudice). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.