Jonathan Herrera v. County of Los Angeles
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff-Appellant Jonathan Herrera (“Jonathan”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
1. The district court did not err in dismissing Jonathan’s claims against Defendants Barlow and Ballou. Jonathan’s Third Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action against these defendants for deliberate indifference because there is no factual allegation that “plausibly suggests,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 683, 129 S.Ct. 1937 , that these defendants knew of and disregarded “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety,” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
2.The district court erred in dismissing Jonathan’s claim against Defendant Espinoza. Jonathan’s Third Amended Complaint and the accompanying attachments, “plausibly suggest[],” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 683 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , that Espinoza knew of and disregarded “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 .