Zeoli v. The State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabiliation et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 18 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JOSEPH ZEOLI,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C-12-2785 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et. al,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(Docket No. 18)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

Plaintiff Joseph Zeoli, a former inmate of San Quentin State Prison, filed this action against

17

the State of California, California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a prison

18

employee, and 99 Doe Defendants, for allegedly harmful acts committed during his period of

19

incarceration. Defendants the State of California and the Department of Corrections and

20

Rehabilitation filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Docket No. 18.

21

For the reasons stated on the record and in this order, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED

22

in part and DENIED in part.

23

As stated more fully on the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown

24

that he “is realistically threatened by a repetition of the violation[s]” alleged in his complaint, and,

25

consequently, lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution of the United States to obtain

26

prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109

27

(1983); Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 860-61 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, as Plaintiff

28

acknowledged in his briefing on this motion, see Pl.’s Response (Docket No. 21) at 15:1-7, the

1

Court finds that he cannot receive an award of punitive or exemplary damages under either the

2

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq., or the Rehabilitation Act of

3

1973 (Rehab Act), 29 U.S.C. § 794. As such, these two elements of Plaintiff’s complaint are

4

DISMISSED with prejudice.

5

Plaintiff has also failed to plead sufficient facts showing that three of his substantive claims

6

for alleged violations of the ADA and Rehab Act were undertaken “by reason of” or “solely by

7

reason of” his disability. See McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004);

8

Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). On the facts pled in the complaint, the

9

Court cannot draw a “reasonable inference” that the release of information concerning Plaintiff’s
medical condition, his placement into Administrative Segregation, or the reassignment of his

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sleeping bunk, state a plausible claim that these actions were taken because of his HIV status. See

12

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to show (and clarified he

13

does not assert) that derogatory statements allegedly made by Defendants and their agents give rise

14

to liability under the ADA and Rehab Act in light of U.S. v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), and

15

Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, these elements of Plaintiff’s

16

complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice.

17

As for the remaining elements of the complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the

18

conduct complained of occurred “by reason of” or “solely by reason of” his disability. Thus,

19

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss claims that they failed to protect Plaintiff during his incarceration,

20

that they purposely withheld his medication, and that they denied him other prison benefits and

21

services are hereby DENIED.

22

This order disposes of Docket No. 18.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: September 21, 2012

27

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

28

2