Oscar H. Villanueva v. M. D. BITER, Warden at Kern Valley State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR H. VILLANUEVA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. D. BITER, Warden at Kern Valley
State Prison; S. LOPEZ, Chief Medical
Executive at Kern Valley State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16935
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01050-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 21, 2015***
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Oscar H. Villanueva, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
FILED
AUG 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Villanueva consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (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)(B)(ii)). We reverse and remand.
Dismissal of Villanueva’s action was premature because Villanueva alleged
that defendants were aware of water contamination issues at the prison since the
facility opened but failed to act, which resulted in harm to his health. Liberally
construed, these allegations were “sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to
file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see also
Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir. 2000) (“More modest deprivations
can also form the objective basis of [an Eighth Amendment] violation, but only if
such deprivations are lengthy or ongoing.”); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091
(9th Cir. 1996) (water adequate to maintain health is a basic human need protected
by the Eighth Amendment).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
13-16935 2

-- 2 of 2 --