Columbus Allen, Jr. v. Adam Christianson

Good Law
478 F. App'x 446
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 13, 201211-15151California339 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Columbus Allen appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his pro se civil rights complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

Allen’s amended complaint states a claim against prison dentist Dr. Cheung for constitutionally inadequate medical care. Allen alleges in his complaint that Dr. Cheung refused for months to treat Allen’s serious dental problem based on a series of “ephemeral and contradictory” reasons. Taking those allegations as true and drawing all inferences in Allen’s favor, Allen’s complaint establishes that Dr. Cheung purposefully delayed providing Allen necessary dental treatment and therefore acted with deliberate indifference to Allen’s serious medical need. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.1989); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 904-05 (9th Cir.2002). The magistrate judge’s conclusion, as adopted in full by the district court, that delays in Allen’s treatment were “beyond Dr. Cheung’s control” misconstrued Allen’s allegations and improperly assumed at the pleading stage that Dr. Cheung’s assertions about why he failed to treat Allen were true. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d…

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.