Sanford v. Gudino, 4:18-cv-01000

Plaintiff Eric Ylmo Sanford, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 suit alleging inadequate medical accommodation while housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP).
Sanford has a documented seizure disorder and a medical chrono requiring assignment to a lower bunk.
On April 13, 2017, Officers Gudino and Benitez informed Sanford he would receive a cellmate and, despite seeing his chrono, were instructed to move his belongings to the top bunk; Sanford refused and an alarm was activated.
Sanford was removed from his cell, placed in restraints, taken to a holding cell, and told by Sergeant Ramey and Lt. Stevenson that they did not care about his chrono and that he would be moved to a top-bunk assignment.
On April 21, 2017, while climbing into the top bunk, Sanford suffered a seizure and fell, injuring his neck, shoulder, arm, and ankle.
The court construed the amended complaint liberally and found it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Gudino, Ramey, and Stevenson; the court ordered service and set a schedule for dispositive motions and summary judgment briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forcing Sanford to a top bunk despite a medical chrono violated the Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference to health/safety)	Sanford contends defendants knew of his seizure disorder and chrono and disregarded the risk, causing his fall and injuries	Defendants likely will argue no deliberate indifference (disputed facts / exigent circumstances) or deny knowledge/responsibility	Court held the amended complaint sufficiently alleges deliberate indifference to proceed against Gudino, Ramey, and Stevenson
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies must be raised and how to raise it procedurally	Sanford alleges exhaustion or did not rely on failure to exhaust to defeat claim	Defendants may assert failure to exhaust under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)	Court instructed that exhaustion defenses must be raised in a motion for summary judgment per Ninth Circuit guidance (Albino v. Baca) and ordered defendants to file dispositive motions within the schedule provided

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (complaint need only give fair notice of claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1983 requires state action and constitutional violation)
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (notice to pro se prisoner when opposing summary judgment)
Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand notice requirement must accompany summary judgment filing)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to exhaust must be raised in a motion for summary judgment)