Stacy Hall v. Buddy Myotte ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STACY G. HALL, No. 17-35954
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00058-DLC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BUDDY MYOTTE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Stacy G. Hall, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. 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
*
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).
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.
The district court dismissed Hall’s action for failure to state a claim.
However, liberally construed, Hall’s allegations “are sufficient to warrant ordering
[defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.
2012).
First, regarding his claim alleging a dangerous work environment, Hall
alleged that defendants denied him proper equipment to clean high surfaces and
instead instructed him to stand on furniture and fixtures in the cell, creating the
dangerous conditions that caused Hall’s slip and fall accident. Hall also alleged
that defendants denied him any protective gear to prevent exposure to fecal matter
while cleaning a cell as part of his work duty. These allegations are sufficient to
state a claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994) (knowledge of
substantial risk can be inferred from circumstantial evidence “and a factfinder may
conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the
risk was obvious”); Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006)
2 17-35954
(setting forth requirements for an Eighth Amendment claim in the prison work
context).
Second, regarding his medical deliberate indifference claim, Hall alleged
that defendants delayed, denied, and interfered with prescribed physical therapy for
his shoulder injury, and that defendants interfered with the continuous
administration of his pain medication. These allegations are sufficient to state a
claim. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting
forth elements of medical deliberate indifference claim).
Finally, regarding his retaliation claim, Hall alleged that he received
inadequate medical care in retaliation for filing grievances and that defendant
Kohut told him that his medical care would improve if he stopped filing
grievances. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim. See Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a
retaliation claim in the prison context).
We reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
We reject as unsupported by the record Hall’s contentions that the district
court failed to consider his supervisory liability and excessive force claims.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3 17-35954