Kenneth Baptiste v. G. Dunn
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Kenneth Emanuel Baptiste, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to dental needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court concluded that Baptiste had not stated a claim for deliber- ’ ate indifference to dental needs and denied leave to amend except as to three defendants. However, a review of the complaint indicates that Baptiste stated a claim of deliberate indifference as to all defendants except Kimura-Yip regarding the denial of treatment for his periodontal disease because Baptiste alleged that defendants knew of and disregarded the possibility of adverse long-term effects to his health arising from the failure to check the progress of the disease. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32-35 , 113 S.Ct. 2475 , 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim…