Williams v. State of California et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/28/11 denying 15 Motion for reasonable accommodations. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-2893 KJM CKD P

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2011, the previously assigned magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s

18

original complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended

19

complaint.

20

On August 11, 2011, plaintiff filed a “motion for reasonable accommodations” in

21

which he asserts that he is visually impaired and cannot see clearly even with corrective lenses.

22

Plaintiff claims that he only has access to auxiliary visual aids during his weekly sessions in the

23

prison law library, and that he is entitled to greater accommodation for his disability. Plaintiff

24

asks the court to order that all court correspondence directed to any party in this action be

25

transcribed onto audio cassette tapes for plaintiff’s use, and that all prospective defendants

26

communicate with plaintiff via audiotape. (Dkt. No. 15.)
1

1

If plaintiff seeks to challenge prison officials’ accommodation of his disability

2

pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he may raise such a claim in the

3

amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Phiffer v. Columbia River Correctional

4

Institute, 384 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2004); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

This, not a motion, is the appropriate vehicle for plaintiff’s request for relief. Moreover, in light

6

of the fact that plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings in both this action and a concurrent federal

7

action, Williams v. Hedgpeth, CIV-S-09-2968 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal.), in recent months, the

8

court is satisfied that plaintiff is able to litigate his federal claims with the aid of his present

9

accommodations.

10
11

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 11, 2011 motion for
reasonable accommodations (Dkt. No. 15) is denied.

12

Dated: September 28, 2011

13

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17

2
will2893.ord

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2