Andrew Avila v. Michael Felder, 22-15791

Andrew Avila, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP), experienced severe medical issues, including pain and loss of vision in his right eye.
Avila, proceeding pro se, filed suit under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need, naming Michael Felder, KVSP’s then-CEO, as defendant.
Avila alleged Felder personally examined him, prescribed a medication that caused an allergic reaction, and failed to sign an emergency order, causing permanent vision loss.
The district court dismissed Avila’s amended complaint with prejudice at the screening stage, finding failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Avila should have been given a chance to further amend his complaint, particularly in light of the possibility that other unnamed staff were responsible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deliberate indifference claim	Felder ignored clear serious medical needs, causing harm	Felder did not personally treat Avila	Avila stated a plausible claim; remand for amendment
Leave to amend	Should be allowed more opportunities to amend	District court acted properly	Leave to amend should have been granted
Dismissal of pro se complaint	Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed	Failure to state a claim justifies dismissal	Liberal standard applies; reversal required
Identifying unknown defendants	Other unnamed individuals may be responsible	Complaint only names Felder	Discovery should be allowed to identify others

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (sets forth deliberate indifference test under the Eighth Amendment)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (clarifies elements for showing deliberate indifference to medical needs)
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasizes liberal construction of pro se pleadings at screening)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend should be granted unless complaint cannot be cured)