NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, No. 20-16836
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00068-AWI-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JIMINEZ, Sergeant at Kern Valley State
Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Shauntae Taylor appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse
and remand.
The district court dismissed Taylor’s excessive force claim for failure to
state a claim. However, Taylor alleged that defendants acted with malice when
inflicting unnecessary injury and harm through the use of excessive force,
including deploying a grenade inside his cell and seriously beating him without
provocation. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim. See Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-7 (1992) (explaining the elements of an excessive force
claim in the prison context); Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639, 642-43
(9th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff’s allegation that defendants “beat the crap out of [him]”
was sufficient to state an excessive force claim).
The district court dismissed Taylor’s deliberate indifference claim for failure
to state a claim. However, Taylor alleged that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to treat his swollen left eye
following a physical altercation with defendants. Liberally construed, these
allegations “are sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.”
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference standard).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
2 20-16836
Taylor’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is
denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3 20-16836