Stanley Sheets vs. State of California
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Hearing on Demurrer
Rouse, Raymond

Defendants’ Demurrer to the cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the Second Amended Complaint is unopposed, but is OVERRULED.

On February 28, 2013 the Court sustained the demurrer to the original Complaint with leave to amend. On Sept. 6, 2013, this Court sustained the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges a cause of action for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (1st cause of action, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (2nd cause of action). Defendants demur only to the 2nd cause of action.

Plaintiff, a California State Prison inmate, alleges that he was injured when a prison transport cart with no doors and open sides in which he was riding after a physical therapy appointment was operated recklessly, causing him to fall out of the cart. Plaintiff was in a neck brace from a physical therapy appointment and was in waist chains at the time so could not break his fall. The correctional officer driving was allegedly driving the vehicle “like a go cart” and he and the passenger correctional officers allegedly began to “hoot and holler” while laughing and the passengers were “egging on” the driver to drive faster. After plaintiff fell out of the cart he alleges he was unconscious. He states that when he came to in a pool of blood the officers stated: “What’s the matter with you?” What did you do that for?” and “Were you trying to escape?” They allegedly tapped plaintiff with their boots and told him to stop being a baby, and that if he tried to make a big deal of the accident, the worse it would be for him. Defendant Miller allegedly stated. “Are you trying to get on more dope?”

The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress were summarized in Cervantez v. J. C. Penny Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579, 593, as follows: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. ( Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 394; Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.(1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-499; State Rubbish etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff (1952) 38 Cal.2d 330, 336-339; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed.) Torts, §§ 234-237, pp. 2515-2517.) In Giraldo v Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 231, 250-251, the Court held that there was a special relationship between a jailer and a prisoner giving rise to a duty of care to protect the prisoner from foreseeable harm inflicted by a third party.

Defendants contend that as a matter of law the allegations of the SAC are insufficient to state facts to reflect that defendants’ conduct caused plaintiff severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has alleged physical injuries and his conclusion that he has suffered severe emotional distress.

Specifically, plaintiff has alleged that: “Additionally, as the result of being thrown to the pavement from this prison transport cart and having the defendant correctional officers laugh and belittle him while he was writhing in pain on the concrete, all the while having his arms chained to his waist, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.” (SAC, para. 17) And “When these defendants stood over the semi-conscious and severely injured plaintiff, after he was thrown off the prison transport cart as a result of the negligent and reckless driving of MILLER, whose conduct was encouraged by MONTES and NUNEZ, laughing at the plaintiff and joking about what happened to him and his injuries, they committed outrageous conduct designed to cause and causing the plaintiff severe emotional distress.” (SAC, para. 33.)

Although alleged in a conclusory fashion, the Court finds that for pleading purposes, the conduct alleged is sufficiently outrageous to give rise to the alleged severe emotional distress, as a result of the conduct of the correctional officer defendants. The details and extent of the distress can be explored in discovery.

Defendants shall file and serve their answer(s) to the plaintiff’s SAC not later than Monday, Jan. 27, 2014.