Young v. County of Tuolumne CA5

Filed 7/22/13 Young v. County of Tuolumne CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DEBORAH YOUNG, F065486 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV56819) v.

COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald Segerstrom, Judge. Abronson Law Offices, Louis S. Abronson and Shelby L. Clark, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Anwyl Scoffield & Stepp, James T. Anwyl and Lynn A. Garcia, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Plaintiff Deborah Young appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant County of Tuolumne (County) after a demurrer to her third amended complaint (TAC) was sustained without leave to amend. Young asserts the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to her single cause of action for violation of 42 United States Code section

1983 (section 1983) because she adequately alleged the County acted with deliberate indifference when she, as a criminal detainee, was issued clothing and shoes that were too large for her, jail employees did not rectify the problem when she complained, and she subsequently was injured when she fell. As we conclude Young has failed to show prejudicial error, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we assume the truth of all facts properly pleaded in order to determine whether a cause of action is stated. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814; Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 579.) We do not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.) In accordance with these rules, we recite the facts as taken from the TAC. On June 1, 2011, Young turned herself in to the County sheriff on a pending criminal matter. When she was detained, she was issued an oversized uniform and a pair of shoes that were approximately three sizes too big. She told “several individuals working at the jail” she was having difficulty walking in the shoes, as they were too big. She also complained about the shoes to jail staff and transport deputies at least four additional times before June 6, 2011, but her complaints were ignored. On June 6, 2011, Young attended a hearing at the County courthouse “wearing the oversize[d] uniform, oversize[d] shoes, handcuffs, and ankle shackles required by her custodians.” Young told her “custodians” she was having difficulty walking in the shoes, but her concerns were ignored. As jail guards led Young down the courthouse steps in a line of prisoners with a guard at each end of the line, Young tripped and fell down approximately eight steps, striking her head. Her skull was fractured and she sustained numerous other injuries. Young fell because she was unable to successfully navigate the