The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, Case No. 24-cv-03187-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
9 v. DISMISS; SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
10 D. DAVIS,
Re: ECF No. 11
Defendant.
11
12
13 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), has filed a pro
14 se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
15 DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 11.
16 DISCUSSION
17 I. Complaint
18 The complaint sues defendant Pelican Bay State Prison officer D. Davis. The complaint
19 makes the following allegations. On June 12, 2023, defendant Davis directed Plaintiff to enter the
20 institutional transport van while Plaintiff was in full body restraints, i.e. handcuffs on both wrists
21 and waist-chains. The full body restraints prevented Plaintiff from having physical equilibrium
22 and from being able to protect himself in the event of a fall. To enter the van, an inmate must
23 ascend several high arching steps. The van lacks handrails to support passengers entering or
24 exiting the van. The van also lacks signage warning passengers of potential injury from ascending
25 or descending these stairs. Defendant Davis is aware that inmates regularly injure themselves
26 entering or exiting the institutional transport van. Defendant Davis failed to warn Plaintiff to
27 watch his step or inform Plaintiff that inmates regularly injure themselves on these stairs. As
1 to break Plaintiff’s fall. When another officer asked what happened, defendant Davis responded,
2 “He slipped and fell, you know how this van is, it gets nearly everyone that gets in or out of it.”
3 The fall left Plaintiff with two broken ribs, a bruised right shoulder, and a deep laceration on his
4 lower left leg that caused acute pain and heavy bleeding. Defendant Davis’s actions and inactions
5 constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See
6 generally ECF No. 1.
7 DISCUSSION
8 I. Motion to Dismiss
9 A. Legal Standard
10 “A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
11 claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation
12 Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d
13 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). In making this determination, a court reviews the contents of the
14 complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor
15 of the nonmoving party. See Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497
16 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not
17 accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the
18 complaint, Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009), and need not accept as true
19 legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
20 (2009). In ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), the court “may
21 generally consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint,
22 and matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont,
23 506 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
24 B. Analysis
25 Defendant Davis argues that the complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons.
26 First, he argues that the complaint alleges a “slip-and-fall” claim which, as a matter of law, fails to
27 state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim in the absence of exacerbating circumstances. In
1 2:18-cv-2595, 2018 WL 5920780, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018); Brown v. Basher, C No. 10-
2 cv-0479, 2012 WL 639446 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2012); Wallace v. Haythorne, C No. 06-cv-1697,
3 2007 WL 3010755, at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Wallace v. Sherman, C No. 1:20-cv-00213, 2020
4 WL 4193968, at *2-5 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, C No. 1:20-
5 cv-00213, 2020 WL 5237603 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020); Curry v. Tilton, C No. 07-cv-0775, 2012
6 WL 967062, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012); and Denton v. Bala, C No. 13-cv-1374, 2013 WL
7 2931897, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2013). The complaint fails to allege facts showing
8 exacerbating conditions that posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s safety and that
9 defendant Davis disregarded such risk. Second, in the alternative, Davis is entitled to qualified
10 immunity because the law is not clearly established that directing a prisoner to ascend steps onto a
11 transport van while in restraints posed a sufficiently serious risk to that prisoner’s safety. See
12 generally ECF No. 11.
13 Plaintiff responds that he has pled exacerbating circumstances and that defendant Davis
14 demonstrated deliberate indifference, thereby distinguishing this case from Curry and Tilton.
15 Further, Brown, Haythorne, and Curry are distinguishable because they were decided at summary
16 judgment. Finally, Defendant Davis is not entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons. First,
17 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998), clearly establishes that a prison official
18 violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on deliberate indifference to inmate safety when (1)
19 the prison official is fully aware of unsafe conditions, makes no attempt to protect Plaintiff from
20 the unsafe condition, and is not acting negligently, and (2) the prisoner is in full body restraints
21 and unable to provide for his own safety. Second, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant
22 Davis was aware of, and disregarded, a risk to Plaintiff’s safety when Plaintiff ascended the stairs
23 to the transport vehicle. See generally ECF No. 14.
24 The Court DENIES defendant Davis’s motion to dismiss. While several district courts
25 have opined on the issue, no controlling authority holds as a matter of law that failure to take
26 adequate precautions against falling down stairs is not an Eighth Amendment violation, and
27 several courts have held otherwise. In Covert v. Graham, for example, plaintiff complained to
1 shoes that were the correct size. While plaintiff was descending some stairs, his ill-fitting shoes
2 caused him to trip and fall. Plaintiff lost consciousness and suffered numerous lacerations.
3 Following the injury, he continued to suffer from damage to his neck, back, right shoulder, and
4 vision. The Covert court held that “Plaintiff’s allegations present a cognizable claim of deliberate
indifference to his safety against Defendants Harrison and Graham stemming from their failure to
5
provide him with properly-fitting shoes.” Covert v. Graham, No. C 06-6626 SBA (PR), 2009 WL
6
2882871, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009). In Vaughan v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, plaintiff was
7
chained at the hands, waist, and feet. He fell down a flight of stairs when his sandal slipped off,
8
causing him to lose his balance. He attempted to reach for the handrail as he was falling, but he
9
was unsuccessful. He suffered a dislocated shoulder. The court denied defendants’ summary
10
judgment motion, holding that a triable issue of fact—that must be decided by a jury—existed as
11
to whether defendants subjected plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm. Vaughan v. Cnty. of
12
San Bernardino, No. CV1201432MMMSPX, 2013 WL 12471115, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2013).
13
In Lee v. Lopez, plaintiff alleged that a correctional officer ordered plaintiff to climb a flight of
14
stairs while handcuffed behind his back, and unescorted. Plaintiff slipped and fell down the flight
15
of stairs, striking his head on a metal railing and losing consciousness. The court held that
16
plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the objectively serious harm required for a claim of deliberate
17
indifference. Lee v. Lopez, No. 1:11-CV-01018-LJO, 2012 WL 4433750, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept.
18
24, 2012).
19 The Court is persuaded by these cases that Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate
20 indifference. Accepting the allegations of the complaint, Defendants were aware of the substantial
21 risk of injury presented by the transport vehicle stairs but took no precautions to prevent that
22 injury.
23 CONCLUSION
24 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES defendant Davis’s motion to dismiss.
25 ECF No. 11. The Court sets the following briefing schedule. Within ninety (90) days of the date
26 of this order, Defendant shall file his dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s
27 motion must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the
1 opposition is docketed in the Court’s electronic filing system. The motion will be deemed
2 submitted on the date the reply brief is due.
3 This order terminates ECF No. 11.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated: September 4, 2025
6
JON S. TIGAR'
7 nited States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28