Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 14, 2025

Holmes v. Coffey, MD

Judge
Van Keulen
Docket
3:25-cv-02784
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Holmes v. Coffey, Judge Van Keulen ordered service after finding a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment, negligence, and elder-abuse claims cognizable.

Who this affects

Brian Marquis Holmes may continue pursuing the claims that the court found cognizable. Dr. Charles Coffey, Correctional Officer N. Mancillas, Correctional Officer A. Alcantar, and Licensed Vocational Nurse Nnakawuka must be served and respond under the procedures in the order.

What happened

In Brian Marquis Holmes v. Charles Coffey, MD, et al., a California prisoner alleged that medical and prison officials failed to move him to a lower-tier cell after prescribing him a walker. He said he fell on the stairs, suffered a head injury, dizziness, balance problems, and leg and back pain.

The court screened the complaint under the law governing prisoner lawsuits. It concluded that Holmes had stated potentially valid claims for deliberate indifference to safety and medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, negligence under state law, and violation of California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The court did not decide whether Holmes will ultimately prevail.

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Holmes’s request to file the complaint by mail and ordered the complaint served on the four defendants. The court also set procedures for service, answers, discovery, and possible summary-judgment motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Holmes v. Coffey, MD · No. 3:25-cv-02784
Judge
Van Keulen
Date
Apr. 14, 2025

Background

Brian Marquis Holmes, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against current and former wardens of Salinas Valley State Prison, where he is housed. The allegations identified Dr. Charles Coffey, Correctional Officer N. Mancillas, Correctional Officer A. Alcantar, and Licensed Vocational Nurse Nnakawuka as defendants.

Holmes alleged that in mid-July 2022, Dr. Coffey prescribed him a walker because of his medical condition. Holmes asked Dr. Coffey to authorize his move from an upper-tier cell to a lower-tier cell so that he would not need to use the walker on stairs. Holmes alleged that the other three defendants knew about the issue but also failed to take actions that would have helped him move. On July 14, 2022, Holmes fell down the stairs while trying to descend with his walker. He alleged that he suffered a head injury, dizziness, impaired balance, and leg and back pain.

Screening and Claims

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state authority.

Liberally construing Holmes’s allegations, the court concluded that they stated cognizable claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court also concluded that the allegations stated cognizable state-law claims for negligence and violation of California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, California Welfare and Institutions Code sections 15600 and following.

Rulings and Case Management

The court granted Holmes’s motion for leave to file the complaint by mail. It stated that his application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was granted in a separate order. The court ordered the complaint served on Dr. Charles Coffey, Correctional Officer N. Mancillas, Correctional Officer A. Alcantar, and Licensed Vocational Nurse Nnakawuka at Salinas Valley State Prison.

The order directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It required the defendants to complete magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent forms and file answers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also established deadlines and procedures for a possible dispositive motion, including a summary-judgment motion, and allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order reminded Holmes that he is responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. It stated that failing to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.