
    Leonard JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16361.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Leonard Johnson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Leonard Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We reverse and remand.

Given the low threshold requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissal of Johnson’s action was improper at this early stage because Johnson alleged that prison officials were aware that inmates’ exposure to valley fever posed a significant threat to inmate safety yet failed to take reasonable measures to avoid that threat. See Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447 (a court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, and accept as true all allegations of material fact); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against inhumane conditions of confinement 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).

Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as to the sufficiency or merits of Johnson’s allegations.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     