Loutzenhiser v. Grounds et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/07/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 No. C-11-2925 TEH (PR) PAUL LOUTZENHISER, Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. R. GROUNDS, et. al., Defendants. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner presently housed at the Correctional 19 Training Facility (“CTF-Soledad”) in Soledad, California, filed a 20 pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Americans 21 with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). 22 This action is now before the Court for initial screening pursuant 23 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 24 I 25 Plaintiff alleges the following in his complaint: 26 Plaintiff is a disabled individual who requires accommodation under 27 the ADA for disabilities pertaining to his damaged lower right leg, 28 and related lower back, hip and leg pain. Doc. 1 at 5. In 2004, 1 Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the California Department of 2 Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and California State Prison 3 - Solano's Medical Department regarding accommodation of his 4 disability. 5 received verbal reassurances that his disability would be 6 accommodated. 7 to wool, acrylic and dust, and that he had been issued a CDCR Form 8 7410 comprehensive accommodation chrono entitling him to cotton 9 bedding. 10 The suit was settled and Plaintiff states that he Plaintiff also alleges that he suffers from allergies In January 2011, defendants D. Bright and L. Fox allegedly 11 revoked Plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act / Disability 12 Program placement status, refused to provide him with footwear that 13 accommodated his disability, denied him cotton bedding, and removed 14 his cane, all without justification. 15 corrective footwear and a cane, Plaintiff is unable to access 16 certain prison facilities, including but not limited to the yard, 17 cafeteria, religious services, laundry, and law library, without 18 causing himself physical pain and suffering. 19 defendants' actions constituted deliberate indifference to his 20 serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and 21 constitute discrimination in violation of the ADA. Doc. #1 at 5-7. Without Plaintiff alleges that 22 23 24 II. Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 25 cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or 26 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 27 28 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 1 In its review the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 2 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 3 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from 4 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 5 (2). 6 Id. at 1915A(b)(1), A. 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 8 allege two essential elements: 9 Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that (1) that a right secured by the 10 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 11 color of state law. 12 Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 13 construed. 14 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 15 1990). 16 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 17 the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual 18 punishment. 19 medical need” exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition 20 could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and 21 wanton infliction of pain.” 22 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part 23 on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 24 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 25 indifferent” if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of 26 serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 A prison official is “deliberately 27 28 A “serious 3 1 steps to abate it. 2 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations of deliberate 3 indifference to his serious medical needs appear to state a 4 cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim with respect to defendants D. 5 Bright and L. Fox. 6 named defendants Warden R. Grounds, CME M. Sepulveda, CEO G. Ellis, 7 Chief IAB A. Foston, and Appeals Examiner K.J. Allen proximately 8 caused the deprivation of his federally-protected right. 9 Amendment claims against these defendants shall be DISMISSED. Plaintiff, however, makes no allegations that The Eighth See 10 Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 11 Eighth Amendment claims shall proceed against named defendants D. 12 Bright and L. Fox. 13 Plaintiff's B. 14 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 15 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), provides that "no qualified 16 individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be 17 excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the 18 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be 19 subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 20 § 12132. 21 must allege four elements: (1) the plaintiff is an individual with a 22 disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate 23 in or receive the benefit of some public entity's services, 24 programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff was either excluded from 25 participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity's 26 services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff 27 28 42 U.S.C. 4 1 against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of 2 benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff's 3 disability. 4 Although Section 12132 does not expressly provide for reasonable 5 accommodations, the implementing regulations provide that "[a] 6 public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, 7 practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to 8 avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public 9 entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would 10 fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or 11 activity." 12 "reasonable accommodations" or "reasonable modifications" for 13 disabled people under Title II of the ADA arises only when a policy, 14 practice or procedure discriminates on the basis of disability. 15 Weinreich v. Los Angeles County MTA, 114 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 16 1997). 17 Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). The duty to provide The problem with Plaintiff’s complaint as to the ADA claim 18 is that he has not named a proper defendant. 19 defendants appear to be individuals who either evaluated 20 Loutzenhiser’s medical needs or processed his inmate appeals. 21 However, individuals cannot be sued directly under the ADA. 22 Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1005 n.8 (8th Cir. 1999) 23 ("Title II provides disabled individuals redress for discrimination 24 by a ‘public entity.' 25 defined within the statute, does not include individuals. 26 U.S.C. § 12131(1)."); see also Vinson, 288 F.3d at 1156. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 27 28 5 All of the named See That term, as it is See 42 Therefore, 1 Plaintiff’s ADA claim against the named defendants is DISMISSED. 2 Here, the "public entity" that allegedly discriminated 3 against Loutzenhiser would have been CTF-Soledad or the California 4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation("CDCR") or both. 5 correctional facilities are "public entities" within the meaning of 6 the ADA. 7 Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). 8 to pursue an ADA claim against these public entities, he must file 9 an amendment to his complaint adding them as defendants. State See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) & (B); Pennsylvania Dep't of If Plaintiff wants 10 11 III 12 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 13 1. The complaint, liberally construed, states a claim 14 for relief under the ADA but has not identified any proper 15 defendants. 16 DISMISSED. 17 an amendment to his complaint no later than March 1, 2012, in which 18 he adds CTF-Soledad and/or the California Department of Corrections 19 as defendants. 20 the Complaint.” 21 The ADA claims against the named defendants are If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his ADA claim, he may file 2. Plaintiff’s amendment shall be titled “Amendment to The complaint, liberally construed, states a claim 22 for relief under the Eighth Amendment and Section 1983 against 23 defendants D. Bright and L. Fox. 24 dismissed from this action. 25 United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, 26 copies of the complaint in this matter and all attachments thereto The remaining named defendants are The Clerk shall issue summons and the 27 28 6 1 and copies of this order on D. Bright and L. Fox, both of whom are 2 prison officials at CTF-Soledad. 3 of this order on Plaintiff. 4 5 3. The Clerk also shall serve a copy To expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 6 a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of 7 this order, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or 8 other dispositive motion. 9 supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all 10 respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as 11 exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events 12 at issue. 13 resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall 14 so inform the Court prior to the date his motion is due. 15 filed with the Court shall be served promptly on Plaintiff. 16 A motion for summary judgment shall be If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be b. All papers Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion 17 shall be filed with the court and served upon Defendants no later 18 than thirty (30) days after Defendants serve Plaintiff with the 19 motion. 20 c. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary 21 judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, 22 if granted, end your case. 23 order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 24 judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material 25 fact - that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that 26 would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for Rule 56 tells you what you must do in 27 28 7 Generally, summary 1 summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which 2 will end your case. 3 summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or 4 other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your 5 Complaint says. 6 declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or 7 authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict 8 the facts shown in Defendants’ declarations and documents and show 9 that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. When a party you are suing makes a motion for Instead, you must set out specific facts in If you do 10 not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if 11 appropriate, may be entered against you. 12 granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 13 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) 14 (App. A). 15 If summary judgment is Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for 16 failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 18 prejudice. 19 opposition in order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the 20 Defendant in his 21 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 22 d. You must “develop a record” and present it in your motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d Defendants shall file a reply brief within 23 fifteen (15) days of the date on which Plaintiff serves them with 24 the opposition. 25 26 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion 27 28 8 1 unless the court so orders at a later date. 2 4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 the parties may conduct discovery. 5 5. No further court order is required before All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must 6 be served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has 7 been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 8 Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 9 6. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 10 case. 11 change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 12 timely fashion. 13 this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must keep the Court and all parties informed of any Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 18 DATED 02/07/2012 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Loutzenhiser-11-2925-osc.wpd 23 24 25 26 27 28 9

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?