Funtanilla

Funtanilla v. Rubles

Good Law
5 F. App'x 590
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 22, 2001No. 00-15302; D.C. No. CV 99-05425-TEHCalifornia290 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Gregorio C. Funtanilla, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we vacate and remand.

We conclude that Funtanilla adequately alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Specifically, Funtanilla alleged that while he was in the suicide prevention cell, “defendant Rubles observed him once during the night cutting his arm.” (Complaint at 2, ¶ 10). See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 (holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk); Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1995) (indicating circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to show prison official’s knowledge of risk). Funtanilla also alleged that Rubles left the hospital…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.