FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO GREGGE, Jr., No. 10-16239
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02561-GEB-
CMK
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM *
CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lorenzo Gregge, Jr., appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for
failure to state a claim, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We
reverse and remand.
Gregge’s complaint, liberally construed, did not seek to allege a respondeat
superior theory of liability. Rather, Gregge alleged that defendants implemented a
policy that resulted in the denial of his constitutional rights. See Redman v. Cnty.
of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (“Supervisory
liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if
supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a
repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional
violation.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A was premature, and we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
Gregge shall bear his own costs on appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 10-16239