Cramblit v California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, et al
Filing
15
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/21/2017. Second Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES CRAMBLIT,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00058-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 14]
Plaintiff James Cramblit is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant
20
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the
21
United States Magistrate Judge on January 20, 2017. Local Rule 302.
22
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed January 25, 2017.
23
I.
24
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
25
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
26
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
27
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
28
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks
1
1
2
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
3
entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
4
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
5
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
6
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally
7
participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County,
8
Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
9
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings
10
liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now
11
higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive
12
screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
13
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal,
14
556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer
15
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely
16
consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
17
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
18
II.
19
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
20
Plaintiff names the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Appeals
21
Examiner, K.J. Allen, Warden, Fisher, and Assignment Lieutenant, Mr. Wainbright, as Defendants.
22
On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an 1824 Reasonable Accommodation Request asking for
23
a job assignment in the dining hall in Facility A. Plaintiff is disabled under the Americans with
24
Disabilities Act because he is a developmentally disabled person and housed in an Enhanced
25
Outpatient Program (EOP) for mentally disabled inmates. Plaintiff’s 1824 request was denied because
26
Plaintiff was not medically approved for food handling. The reasonable accommodation panel made
27
the decision on old medical data that was over ten years old. Plaintiff also submitted a CDCR Form
28
22 to correctional counselor Mr. Davis “to be put on support services, so I can ask for a dining hall
2
1
assignment. His response was that ‘No EOP inmates have been cleared for dining hall or kitchen
2
assignments.’” Plaintiff submits that no EOP inmates have been given job assignments in the dining
3
hall, canteen, or laundry for at least the past two years.
4
III.
5
DISCUSSION
6
A.
7
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
8
such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs,
9
or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
10
Title II applies to the services, programs, and activities provided for inmates by jails and prisons.
11
Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208-13 (1998); Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609
12
F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2010); Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214-15 (9th Cir.
13
2008). “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a
14
qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise
15
discriminated against with regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and (3) such
16
exclusion or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039,
17
1052 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1021; McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259,
18
1265 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If a
19
public entity denies an otherwise ‘qualified individual’ ‘meaningful access’ to its ‘services, programs,
20
or activities’ ‘solely by reason of’ his or her disability, that individual may have an ADA claim against
21
the public entity.”) “The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment
22
for disability.” Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d at 1022.
23
Americans with Disabilities Act
The ADA authorizes suits by private citizens for money damages against public entities,
24
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006), and state prisons “fall squarely within the
25
statutory definition of ‘public entity.’” Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 524 U.S. at 210. “To recover
26
monetary damages under Title II of the ADA …, a plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination on
27
the part of the defendant.” Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001). The
28
standard for intentional discrimination is deliberate indifference, which “requires both knowledge that
3
1
a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood.”
2
Id. at 1139.
3
“In suits under Title II of the ADA … the proper defendant usually is an organization rather
4
than a natural person…. Thus, as a rule, there is no personal liability under Title II.” Roundtree v.
5
Adams, No. 1:01-cv-06502-OWW-LJO, 2005 WL 3284405 (E.D. Cal. 1, 2005) (quotations and
6
citations omitted). Indeed, a plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a State
7
official in his individual capacity to vindicate rights created by Title II of the ADA. Vinson v.
8
Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, an ADA plaintiff may seek injunctive relief
9
against an individual defendant only if the defendant is sued in his or her official capacity. Miranda B.
10
11
v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff must name the appropriate entity or state officials in their official capacities, but he
12
may not name individual prison employees in their personal capacities. Shaughnessy v. Hawaii, No.
13
09-00569 JMS/BMK, 2010 WL 2573355, at *8 (D.Haw. Jun. 24, 2010); Anaya v. Campbell, No. CIV
14
S-07-0029 GEB GGH P, 2009 WL 3763798, at *5-6 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 9, 2009); Roundtree v. Adams,
15
No. 1:01-CV-06502 OWW LJO, 2005 WL 3284405, at *8 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 1, 2005). Individual
16
liability is precluded under the ADA. Shaughnessy, 2010 WL 2573355, at *8; Anaya, 2009 WL
17
3763798, at *5-6; Roundtree, 2005 WL 3284405, at *5.
18
The basis of Plaintiff’s ADA claim is the alleged failure to accommodate his disability with
19
respect to a specific job position at the prison. Plaintiff has not alleged that he has been excluded from
20
participation in any job at the prison. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff asserts a right to demand a
21
specific job placement of his choosing. The Court will grant Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the
22
complaint, if he desires to do so.
23
IV.
24
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
25
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
26
granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v.
27
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by
28
adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
4
1
2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
2
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each
3
named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights.
4
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties
5
and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a
6
constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as
7
true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .
8
. .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
9
Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.,
10
114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be
11
“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All
12
causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are
13
waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.
14
1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
15
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1.
The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form;
17
2.
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed January 25, 2017, is dismissed for failure to
state a claim;
18
3.
19
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint; and
20
4.
21
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
26
February 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?