Freddie Coleman v. David Sweetin, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4644

Coleman, a Texas inmate, filed a pro se § 1983 suit alleging unsafe shower conditions and inadequate medical care at Eastham Unit.
He claimed multiple officials knew of dangerous shower conditions but failed to fix them, and that medical staff repeatedly denied treatment after falls.
The district court sua sponte dismissed portions of the claim as frivolous and for failure to state a claim and for want of prosecution.
A Spears hearing and magistrate recommendations addressed exhaustion of administrative remedies and the viability of various defendants’ claims.
The court ultimately dismissed some defendants while others were remanded or reinstated for further proceedings.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion requirement validity	Coleman exhausted via Step 2 grievances; exhaustion should defeat dismissal.	Failure to exhaust, as evidenced by lack of properly pled exhaustion in complaint.	Exhaustion cannot be the sole basis to dismiss; remand due to improper consideration of exhaustion.
Slippery shower condition and Eighth Amendment	Foreknowledge of dangerous floors shows deliberate indifference.	Slippery floors are ordinary risk; not a constitutional violation.	Slippery-shower claim against Sweetin, Oliver, Cowan, and Brown not pleaded plausibly under Farmer.
Deliberate indifference by Erwin and Fisher regarding medical needs	Erwin and Fisher ignored serious medical needs after Coleman’s falls.	No sufficient showing against Erwin and Fisher under deliberate indifference standard.	Dismissal as to Erwin and Fisher reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Deliberate indifference by Hough regarding medical care	Hough repeatedly denied treatment and pain medication despite evident need.	Delay must show substantial harm and may be insufficient.	Hough’s conduct plausibly raises deliberate indifference; dismissal reversed and remanded.
Dismissal of McManus for want of prosecution	Addressing service defects and potential futility; dismissal premature.	Nonservice warranted dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.	Dismissal with prejudice not warranted; remand for further proceedings.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (two-pronged Eighth Amendment test: objective and subjective components)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain; constitutional standard)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense, not pleading requirement)
Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2007) (district courts cannot compel exhaustion findings before responsive pleading)
Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2004) (slippery prison floors generally not an Eighth Amendment violation)
LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir. 1993) (shackling or dangerous conditions considerations in prisoner context)
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care claims)
Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2006) (delay in medical care requires showing substantial harm)