# Frost v. Agnos > Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 13, 1998 · 152 F.3d 1124 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6973360 ## Case - **Full name:** Raymond Ludwig FROST v. Thomas AGNOS, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellant Raymond Ludwig FROST v. Arthur HUFFMAN, External Referee, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Commander Seeverson, Detention Bureau L Headquarters Commander, Cpt William F. Williams D. Alster, Lieutenant SG Flecher and Officer Jackson Officer Coffman - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - **Decided:** August 13, 1998 - **Citations:** 152 F.3d 1124; 1998 WL 470658 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Goodwin - **Judges:** Fletcher, Goodwin, Nelson - **Cited by:** 664 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/6973360 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding 19 that slippery floors could establish a constitutional claim based on the fact that the plaintiff 20 used crutches and suffered repeated injuries, of which prison officials were aware, caused 21 by a slippery bathroom floor in a bathroom without adequate handicapped … - holding that “[s]lippery floors without protective measures could create a sufficient danger to warrant relief” where prisoner pleaded fact sufficient to show that prison officials “knowingly subjected him to the risk of falling, thereby exhibiting a deliberate indifference to… - holding that where the plaintiff was disabled, had to use crutches, and had fallen many times due to slippery conditions in the shower, and prison officials were aware of all of these facts, the plaintiff could potentially state a deliberate- indifference claim - holding that pretrial detainee did not establish that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs as to “alleged delays in administering his pain medication, in treating his broken nose, and in providing him with a replacement crutch” - holding that a plaintiff could potentially state a deliberate indifference claim for a slippery shower floor where plaintiff used crutches, had injured himself falling on slippery floors several times, and prison personnel were aware of these details ## Opinion text GOODWIN, Circuit Judge, Dissenting in part, Concurring in part: I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which grants any relief to the appellant. It is apparent from the fact set forth by the majority that this prisoner has been amusing himself by engaging in recreational litigation. The trial judges who have been dealing with these cases for the last four years were correct in terminating the cases at the motion stage. Even if every claim made by the prisoner were factually true, no federal constitutional right has been violated by the named defendants, and Rule 12(b) dismissals were properly granted for failure to state a claim. The claims that got beyond Rule 12 were also properly disposed of on the merits. Every disagreement between a prisoner and his keepers about the management of the institution is not a eonsti- *1132 tutional question. I concur m those portions of the careful and conscientious opinion which affirmed the district court, but I cannot concur in federalizing in constitutional terms the garden variety grievances described by this disgruntled former officer, now experiencing detention in admittedly less than ideal circumstances. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6973360. Public record. Not legal advice.