Robert Scanlan v. Tran ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT SCANLAN, No. 15-17319
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00282-LJO-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TRAN, Officer badge #53054; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Robert Scanlan appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm in part, reverse in
part, and remand.
Scanlan alleged that at his arrest and booking, he told defendants that he was
suffering from broken teeth sustained in an altercation the day before. Scanlan also
alleged that he was in serious pain, that defendants failed to respond, and that one
month later a dental x-ray confirmed that Scanlan needed two teeth extracted.
Liberally construed, these allegations of defendants’ deliberate indifference to
Scanlan’s serious medical need, stemming from his broken teeth, were “sufficient
to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012). Scanlan’s allegations as to his other injuries and
ailments are not sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Jett v.
Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference requires
showing of harm “caused by” the alleged indifference).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment only as to Scanlan’s
deliberate indifference claim stemming from his broken teeth, and remand for
further proceedings as to that claim only.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
2 15-17319