Leonard Johnson v. Pleasant Valley State Prison;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16361
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00191-LJO-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Leonard Johnson 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 and safety. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16361 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We
reverse and remand.
Given the low threshold requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissal of
Johnson’s action was improper at this early stage because Johnson alleged that
prison officials were aware that inmates’ exposure to valley fever posed a
significant threat to inmate safety yet failed to take reasonable measures to avoid
that threat. See Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447 (a court must liberally construe pro se
pleadings, and accept as true all allegations of material fact); see also Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (a prison official violates the Eighth
Amendment prohibition against inhumane conditions of confinement 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).
Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as
to the sufficiency or merits of Johnson’s allegations.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --