FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REGINALD SMITH, No. 07-16662
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-02541-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL L. FRIEDMAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reginald Smith, 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 his safety and medical needs. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
*
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).
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, reverse in
part, and remand.
The district court concluded that Smith had abandoned his claims against
defendant Adam because Smith did not re-allege those claims in the amended
complaint. However, the district court’s initial order of dismissal, filed on March
10, 2006, states: “Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Adams [sic] are cognizable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For reasons of judicial economy, however, service of
those claims will be held until plaintiff files an amended complaint, so all claims
can proceed together. If plaintiff fails to timely amend his complaint, or if the
amended claims are dismissed after review, the herein cognizable claims will be
served.” Once the district court dismissed Smith’s amended claims, it should have
ordered service of the claims against Adam, consistent with its prior order.
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal as to Adam, and remand for further
proceedings.
The district court properly concluded that Smith’s allegations against the
remaining defendants failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference. See Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a
prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs.”).
2 07-16662
Smith’s “Motion for Consider[a]tion,” filed on May 18, 2009, is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3 07-16662