Rommel Querol v. Richards, C.o.; A. Smith; D. Bell; J. Lacy; T. Lemo; J. Robertson; Maready; T. Lemos

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMMEL QUEROL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARDS, C.O.; A. SMITH; D. BELL; J.
LACY; T. LEMO; J. ROBERTSON;
MAREADY; T. LEMOS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16343
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01800-JD
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUL 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16343
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 of 2 --