state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we vacate and remand. We conclude that Funtanilla adequately alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Specifically, Funtanilla alleged that while he was in the suicide prevention cell, “defendant Rubles observed him once during the night cutting his arm.” (Complaint at 2, ¶ 10). See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (<HOLDING>); Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th
holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk holding that a prison official may be held liable under the eighth amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk holding that a medical professional was not deliberately indifferent where the prisoner alleged that the professional performed some investigation and determined that the prisoner does not have the condition he thinks he has