MEMORANDUM **
Arizona state prisoner Daniel L. Breese appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts 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 Breeses claims for deliberate indifference regarding defendants’ treatment of Breeses back condition because Breese failed to state a plausible claim. However, Breese alleged that he informed Doe medical staffers about pain in his back where he had recently had surgery, and provided the sheriffs with instructions for post-operative back care that the jail medical staff failed to follow. 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 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fourteenth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care involves objective deliberate indifference). We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.