Court Opinion

ID: 9407906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 19:00:40.567415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.758867
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROMMEL QUEROL,                                  No. 22-16343

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01800-JD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RICHARDS, C.O.; A. SMITH; D. BELL; J.
LACY; T. LEMO; J. ROBERTSON;
MAREADY; T. LEMOS,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                    James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Rommel Querol appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a conditions-of-

confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 dismissed Querol’s action at the screening stage for failure

to state a plausible claim. However, Querol alleged that defendants were aware

that the only bathroom that inmates were allowed to use during work hours had a

dangerous design that subjected inmates to potential injury while closing the door,

and that because of the design, Querol’s finger was cut off while closing the door.

Liberally construed, these allegations are “sufficient to warrant ordering

[defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.

2012); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official

violates the Eighth Amendment if he or she knows of a substantial risk of serious

harm to an inmate and fails to take reasonable measures to avoid the harm). We

therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

      REVERSED and REMANDED.

                                          2                                   22-16343