FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON JAMES PIERCE, No. 09-16714
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01148-FCD-
DAD
v.
EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR.; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Aaron James Pierce appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his medical needs and excessive force. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm in
part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed the claims involving defendants Chief
Medical Officer of CCC-Susanville and Warden Runnels because Pierce did not
allege a connection between the actions of these defendants and the deprivations he
claimed to have suffered. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435,
1439-40 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
Given the low threshold requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Pierce has
stated a colorable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants identified as “Four
Unknown by Name High Desert Officers.” See Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447 (a court
must liberally construe pro se pleadings, and accept as true all allegations of
material fact); see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (excessive
force inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”). Pierce’s failure
to identify these defendants by name does not support dismissal. See Wakefield v.
Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (complaint cannot be dismissed
solely for failure to identify unknown defendants). Accordingly, we remand for
further proceedings on this claim.
2 09-16714
Pierce’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
We deny Pierce’s request for documents.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
3 09-16714