Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 23STCV20370, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Jeffrey Sawn filed suit against Defendant the State of California. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges that he is an inmate at a California State Prison located in Lancaster. Plaintiff alleges following his arrival at CDCR-LAC, Plaintiff began to experience pain in his lower legs and the condition continued. Plaintiff further alleges his condition worsened, and eventually on January 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s foot was amputated. Plaintiff alleges he lost his foot to a prolonged and avoidable sequence of events.

Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for failure to summon medical attention pursuant to Government Code section 845.6.

Defendant State of California’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant State of California demurs to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the grounds Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to state a Government Code Section 845.6 claim and Defendant is also immune from Plaintiff’s claim under Government Code Section 856.4.

Defendant State of California first demurs to the complaint on the grounds the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim against Defendant.

Government Code section 845.6 provides that “a public employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care.” (Gov. Code, §845.6.)

California courts have construed the provision to create limited liability “when: (1) the public employee knows or has reason to know of the need, (2) of immediate medical care, and (3) fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care.” (Castaneda v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1070 [internal quotations, brackets and emphasis omitted].)

Defendant argues the complaint actually details several actions the prison took to provide plaintiff medical attention when he needed it and as a result, the SAC still cannot show that Defendant failed to take reasonable actions to address Plaintiff’s medical needs. Defendant also argues even if Swan informed the correct staff of a sufficiently serious symptom, the SAC does not show that Defendant failed to take reasonable action.

The court finds the allegations sufficient for the purposes of a demurrer. Plaintiff has alleged while housed at KVSP, Plaintiff engaged in regular exercise and was well known by the correctional personnel for running laps on the prison track and for his regular use of the gym and was transferred to CDCR-LAC due to his good behavior and favorable parole status. (SAC ¶¶14-15.) Because of this, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s Adult Corrections Officers knew or should have known that he required immediate medical attention because he was unable to fully participate in his exercise regimen, on many occasions collapsed and fell to the ground, was unable to stand for short periods of time, sat with his back against the wall would boil water 2 to 3 times a night to warm up his feet and reduce the pain, and was provided a wheelchair. (SAC ¶¶19-26.) Whether all of these together can reasonably be deemed notice that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care are questions of fact to be determined at trial. (See Hart v. County of Orange (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 302, 307.)

The complaint further alleges it took eleven months after Plaintiff arrived at CDCR-LAC before he was sent to Antelope Valley Medical Care District hospital where it was immediately determined gangrene had spread throughout his right foot. (SAC ¶¶27-28.) The court cannot determine on demurrer the inherently factual issue of whether the eleven-month delay upon noticing Plaintiff’s symptoms were unreasonably long under the circumstances.

Defendant argues the SAC should also be dismissed because the alleged conduct falls within Section 856.4 of the Government Code and Swan twice states that the reason he believes Defendant is liable is that “[t]oo much time, from the time [he] arrived at [LAC] with blood clots to the time [he] was sent to Antelope Valley Health Care District for evaluation and Palmdale Regional Medical Center for diagnosis and treatment …, had elapsed…” (SAC ¶39.) Defendant also argues Plaintiff’s Government Claim states that the “[s]tate prison did not adequately diagnose or send claimant out of its facility for proper and timely treatment urgently required.”

The court disagrees. The SAC, as alleged, is not the failure to admit Plaintiff to a medical facility but failure to take reasonably action in summoning medical care.

[1] The court notes the meet and confer did not occur in person or by telephone. Parties are ordered to comply with all the rules of Code of Civil Procedure.