# Mark Brown v. C. Flores

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 28, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4372481

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 28, 2019
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4372481

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK A. BROWN, No. 18-16807

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01578-LHK

v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. FLORES, Correctional Officer, Salinas
Valley Prison; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Mark A. Brown appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2011). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Brown’s action on the basis that Brown’s

allegations were too conclusory to infer that each defendant knew of a substantial

risk of serious harm to Brown and failed to act. However, Brown alleged in his

verified amended complaint that he personally notified defendants that his cell was

flooding with water, creating a hazard to his safety and preventing him from using

his sink and toilet, and that defendants declined to help him. 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 Johnson v.

Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir. 2000) (deprivation of sanitation may amount to

an Eighth Amendment violation); Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314

(9th Cir. 1995) (“[S]ubjection of a prisoner to lack of sanitation that is severe or

prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the Eighth

Amendment.”). We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further

proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 18-16807

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4372481. Public record. Not legal advice.