Ogelsby v. Department of Corrections et al
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/7/2020 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSSING 16 Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)
Case 2:18-cv-00113-KJM-KJN Document 25 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JESSE FRANK OGLESBY,
No. 2:18-cv-0113 KJM KJN P
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 23, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the
findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Case 2:18-cv-00113-KJM-KJN Document 25 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2
In the process of reaching its conclusion, the court has carefully considered relevant
authority with respect to slip and fall accidents in prisons. The magistrate judge quotes Pauley v.
California, which found courts “have reached this conclusion [regarding prisoners failing to state
a constitutional claim for slip and fall accidents], even where the hazard has existed, and been
known to prison officials, for years, and where the prisoner was required to use the dangerous
location, such as a bathroom.” Pauley v. California, 2018 WL 5920780, at *4–5 (E.D. Cal. Nov.
13, 2018). As the court in Pauley noted, the Ninth Circuit has held “‘[s]lippery floors without
protective measures could create a sufficient danger to warrant relief’ where the plaintiff has
some known exacerbating condition.” Id., at *4 (quoting Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129
(9th Cir. 1998) (denying summary judgment with respect to the claim of an inmate who had a
broken leg, that prison officials did not take necessary measures to protect him when he was
injured multiple times after slipping in shower)). “While the Ninth Circuit has not provided
further guidance on such additional requirement, a district court has concluded that ‘the risk of
harm turns into a substantial risk of serious harm somewhere between a bare claim of a slippery
floor and a claim of a hazard plus some known exacerbating condition.’” Id., at *5 (quoting
Washington v. Sandoval, 2012 WL 987291, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012)).
As the finding and recommendations review, plaintiff has not pled facts similar to those
underlying Pauley, Frost or Washington. The lack of “further guidance on such additional
requirement”—a claim involving an “exacerbating condition”—is a question an appellate court
may at some point clarify. But it does not allow plaintiff’s complaint to survive here.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 23, 2019, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
DATED: September 7, 2020.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?