(PC) Dickerson v. Wheeler

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY DICKERSON, No. 2:24-cv-0895 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 19 forth below, this court finds plaintiff states a minimally sufficient claim under the Americans with 20 Disabilities Act against the Warden but states no other claims for relief cognizable under §1983. 21 Plaintiff will be given the choice of proceeding immediately on his ADA claim or filing a second 22 amended complaint. 23 SCREENING 24 I. Legal Standards 25 As described in the court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen 26 complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 27 U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis 28 for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 2 defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 3 (1978). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s 4 “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 5 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 6 [the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 7 constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 8 marks and citations omitted). A court shall dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon 9 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 10 II. Discussion 11 A. Plaintiff’s Allegations in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) 12 Plaintiff is incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). Plaintiff identifies as 13 defendants the Warden of HDSP and Chief Medical Executive Dr. Kevin Reuter. 14 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is somewhat difficult to read. As best the court can 15 tell, plaintiff alleges the following: Plaintiff is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act 16 (“ADA”) because he requires a wheelchair and has a prosthetic leg. The B-yard did not have 17 toilets until plaintiff complained. Plaintiff states that he “often fell down attempting to get 18 inside.” Because he did not have access to a toilet, plaintiff urinated and defecated on himself. 19 Staff denied him a shower after he defecated on himself. 20 Plaintiff alleges that that his physical disabilities require that he have treatment with 21 “constant exercise.” Defendants deprived him of medical care because he was forced to choose 22 between getting exercise in the yard and staying inside where he had access to a bathroom. 23 Defendants told plaintiff they could not accommodate his disabilities at HDSP. 24 While the court is not required to review exhibits to determine plaintiff’s claims, this court 25 has briefly reviewed the many attachments to the “Memorandum of Points and Authorities by the 26 Petitioner” filed with plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 17-1.) The attachments involve plaintiff’s 27 complaints about a host of health issues and about the lack of a toilet on B yard. At least two 28 attachments appear to involve plaintiff’s complaints about the lack of a toilet. Plaintiff attaches 1 copies of the Institutional Level responses, signed by defendant Reuter, denying plaintiff’s 2 grievances regarding the lack of a toilet on the B yard for over a year. (ECF No. 17-1 at 5-9, 39- 3 43.) In another attachment, apparently part of a grievance, plaintiff states that the prosthetic leg 4 does not fit, requiring him to be in a wheelchair. He indicates that if he received appropriate 5 physical therapy, he would not require a wheelchair. (Id. at 38.) 6 For relief, plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring a transfer to an appropriate prison and 7 compensatory and punitive damages. 8 B. Does Plaintiff State Claims Cognizable under §1983? 9 1. Americans with Disabilities Act 10 a. Legal Standards 11 Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason 12 of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, 13 programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 14 42 U.S.C. §12132. Title II authorizes suits by private citizens for money damages against public 15 entities, United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006), and state prisons “fall squarely 16 within the statutory definition of ‘public entity,’” Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 17 U.S. 206, 210 (1998); see also Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997). The 18 proper defendant in an ADA action is the public entity responsible for the alleged discrimination. 19 Georgia, 546 U.S. at 153. 20 “A disability discrimination claim may be based on ‘one of three theories of liability: 21 disparate treatment, disparate impact, or failure to make a reasonable accommodation.’” Payan v. 22 Los Angeles Community College District, 11 F.4th 729, 738 (quoting Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 23 231, 260 (2d Cir. 2016)). In contrast to a Title II disparate impact claim, which “is focused on 24 modifying a policy or practice to improve systemic accessibility,” a Title II “reasonable 25 accommodation claim is focused on an accommodation based on an individualized request or 26 need[.]” Id. 27 “Generally, public entities must ‘make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 28 procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of 1 disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would 2 fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.’” Pierce v. County of Orange, 3 526 F.3d 1190, 1215 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7)). The state is responsible 4 for providing inmates with “the fundamentals of life, such as sustenance, the use of toilet and 5 bathing facilities, and elementary mobility and communication,” and as such, the ADA requires 6 that these “opportunities” be provided to disabled inmates “to the same extent that they are 7 provided to all other detainees and prisoners.” Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 8 1068 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1220 (finding ADA violation where defendant 9 failed to articulate “any legitimate rationale for maintaining inaccessible bathrooms, sinks, 10 showers, and other fixtures in the housing areas and commons spaces assigned to mobility- and 11 dexterity-impaired detainees”). 12 To state a claim that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff 13 must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability;” (2) he was either excluded from 14 participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was 15 otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 16 discrimination was by reason of his disability. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 17 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If a 18 public entity denies an otherwise ‘qualified individual’ ‘meaningful access’ to its ‘services, 19 programs, or activities’ ‘solely by reason of’ his or her disability, that individual may have an 20 ADA claim against the public entity.”). 21 Furthermore, “[t]o recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA … a plaintiff 22 must prove intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant.” Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 23 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001). The standard for intentional discrimination is deliberate 24 indifference, “which requires both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is 25 substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood.” Id. at 1139. The ADA plaintiff 26 must both “identify ‘specific reasonable’ and ‘necessary’ accommodations that the state failed to 27 provide” and show that the defendant’s failure to act was “a result of conduct that is more than 28 negligent, and involves an element of deliberateness.” Id. at 1140. 1 b. Does Plaintiff State a Cognizable ADA Claim? 2 Plaintiff adequately alleges that he is disabled under the ADA. This court further finds 3 plaintiff’s allegations are minimally sufficient to state an ADA claim that HDSP’s lack of a 4 bathroom on the B yard for a year deprived plaintiff of the ability to use the yard. That 5 deprivation was based on plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff made HDSP aware of these problems 6 through grievances. While the appropriate defendant in an ADA action is the public entity, 7 plaintiff’s identification of the Warden, acting in his official capacity, as a defendant is 8 appropriate. Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on his ADA claim against the Warden. 9 2. Eighth Amendment 10 a. Legal Standards 11 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. 12 Const. amend. VIII. To state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment, a prisoner must allege that 13 objectively he suffered a sufficiently serious deprivation and that subjectively prison officials 14 acted with deliberate indifference in allowing or causing the deprivation to occur. Wilson v. 15 Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1991). 16 “[A] prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane 17 conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm 18 and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 19 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). That is, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the 20 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 21 inference.” Id. at 837. 22 With respect to plaintiff’s claim of unsanitary conditions, the Ninth Circuit and district 23 courts in this circuit have held that unsanitary conditions for a prolonged period of time rise to the 24 level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314 25 (9th Cir.) (“[A] lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain 26 within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.”), amended on other grounds, 75 F.3d 448 (9th 27 Cir. 1995); see also Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (unconstitutional 28 prison conditions claim where the inmate alleged serious health hazards in disciplinary 1 segregation yard for a period of nine months, including toilets that did not work, stagnant pools of 2 water infested with insects, and a lack of cold water when the prison yard exceeded 100 degrees). 3 However, even exposure to severely unsanitary conditions for as few as three days has been held 4 to be a potential Eighth Amendment violation. See McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291-92 5 (10th Cir. 2001) (vacating Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal where plaintiff alleged he was forced to live in 6 “feces-covered cell” for three days); Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 355-56, 363-65, (3rd Cir. 7 1992) (reversing summary judgment for defendants where inmate was moved to “dry cell” 8 without working toilet for 96 hours and forced to urinate and defecate in his cell), superseded by 9 statute on other grounds as stated in Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 71 n. 7 (3rd Cir. 2000). 10 b. Does Plaintiff State a Cognizable Eighth Amendment Claim? 11 With respect to plaintiff’s allegations that he was deprived of a bathroom, plaintiff again 12 fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim for relief. Plaintiff makes only vague references to 13 falling, and does not explain how that relates to the lack of a bathroom on the yard. With respect 14 to plaintiff’s allegation of unsanitary conditions, in the attachments to his complaint, plaintiff 15 indicates that he defecated on himself once. This is insufficient to show plaintiff was subjected to 16 unsanitary conditions for a prolonged period of time. Plaintiff’s claims regarding the denial of a 17 bathroom are more appropriately brought under the ADA. 18 With respect to plaintiff’s contention that he was deprived of medical care because he 19 could not use the yard, plaintiff fails to show just what medical care he required and how the 20 actions of each defendant amounted to a denial of that medical care. Plaintiff’s allegation that he 21 needs “constant” exercise is not sufficient. 22 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to make other claims about the denial of medical care, 23 the allegations in his complaint are insufficient. Plaintiff fails to set out facts in the body of his 24 complaint showing just what each defendant did that violated his rights. Plaintiff must be more 25 specific about each defendant’s actions and show how those actions demonstrate that each 26 defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 27 //// 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 The court finds above that plaintiff states an ADA claim against the Warden. This court 3 further finds that plaintiff fails to state any constitutional claims for relief cognizable under 4 §1983. Plaintiff will be given a choice. Plaintiff may choose to proceed immediately on his 5 ADA claim against the Warden or plaintiff may choose to file a second amended complaint. If 6 plaintiff chooses to proceed now on his ADA claim, plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss all other 7 claims and defendants. 8 If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must address the 9 problems with his complaint that are explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an amended 10 complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated 11 his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s 12 charging allegations are as to each named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must 13 include it in the body of the complaint. The charging allegations must be set forth in the amended 14 complaint so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff 15 need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a 16 short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 17 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 18 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 19 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 20 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 21 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a person deprives another of a 22 constitutional right if that person was personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by 23 others that resulted in the deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the 24 deprivation). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 25 are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 26 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 27 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 28 //// 1 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 2 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 3 The federal rules contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and 4 plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 5 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to 6 focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 7 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 8 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 9 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 10 evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 11 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 12 For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 13 follows: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED as moot given 15 that the court had already granted plaintiff leave to amend in its screening order 16 docketed on August 13, 2024. 17 2. Plaintiff has stated a minimally sufficient claim against the Warden of HDSP for 18 violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 19 3. Plaintiff’s other claims and defendant are dismissed with leave to amend. 20 4. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his cognizable claim set out above or he may 21 choose to amend his complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on his cognizable 22 claim in the first amended complaint, he shall voluntarily dismiss his other claims and 23 defendants. 24 5. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 25 attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 6. Plaintiff warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 2 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 3 | DATED: December 3, 2024 4 6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY DICKERSON, No. 2:24-cv-0895 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO PROCEED 14 WARDEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his ADA claim against defendant Warden. 19 Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the first amended complaint he is 20 voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 21 22 _____ Plaintiff wants to amend the first amended complaint. 23 24 DATED:______________________ 25 ____________________________________ 26 Jeffrey Dickerson, Plaintiff 27 28