Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9412430
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Rommel Querol v. Richards
No. 9412430 · Decided July 10, 2023
No. 9412430·Ninth Circuit · 2023·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 10, 2023
Citation
No. 9412430
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMMEL QUEROL, No. 22-16343
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01800-JD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARDS, C.O.; A. SMITH; D. BELL; J.
LACY; T. LEMO; J. ROBERTSON;
MAREADY; T. LEMOS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rommel Querol appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a conditions-of-
confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Querol’s action at the screening stage for failure
to state a plausible claim. However, Querol alleged that defendants were aware
that the only bathroom that inmates were allowed to use during work hours had a
dangerous design that subjected inmates to potential injury while closing the door,
and that because of the design, Querol’s finger was cut off while closing the door.
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); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official
violates the Eighth Amendment if he or she knows of a substantial risk of serious
harm to an inmate and fails to take reasonable measures to avoid the harm). We
therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 22-16343
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2023 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2023 MOLLY C.
02California state prisoner Rommel Querol appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
03We review de * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
04** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2023 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Rommel Querol v. Richards in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 10, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9412430 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.