Lauren v. Montana State University et al
Filing
26
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 21 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Paxton and York filed by Brenda York, John Paxton. (), ORDER granting 25 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint IFP/Prisoner filed by Jean Paul Lauren, Motions terminated: 25 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint IFP/Prisoner filed by Jean Paul Lauren., (, Amended Pleadings due by 2/26/2018.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch on 1/29/2018. (TCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
JEAN PAUL LAUREN,
CV 17-62-BU-BMM-JCL
Plaintiff,
ORDER, and FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
vs.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
JOHN PAXTON, and BRENDA
YORK,
Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants John Paxton and Brenda York’s motion
requesting dismissal of the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) at 42 U.S.C. § 12132. For the reasons discussed, the Court recommends
the motion be granted, and the referenced claims against Paxton and York should
be dismissed.
But Plaintiff Jean Paul Lauren moves to amend his pleading. Thus, the Court
will grant Lauren’s motion to add different claims against Paxton and York.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Jean Paul Lauren, appearing pro se, commenced this action alleging
1
Defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for his disabilities while he
was attending Montana State University, and they terminated his schooling.
Lauren’s pleading, however, did not expressly identify any particular legal claim
against Defendants. Therefore, in view of his pro se status and his asserted
disabilities, the Court, as it is obligated to do so, liberally construed his pleading to
advance a claim under the ADA. So construed, the Court ordered the Defendants to
respond to Lauren’s pleading.
II.
Discussion
Although the Court characterized Lauren’s claim as one advanced under
Title II of the ADA, Title II is limited in its application in that it governs the
actions of a public entity, not an individual. Therefore, the ADA does not impose
individual liability against a state official in his or her individual capacity. Heinke
v. County of Tehama Sheriff’s Dept., 2013 WL 3992407, *7-8 (E.D. Cal. 2013).
See also Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding a
plaintiff cannot pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an individual state
official predicated upon a violation of Title II of the ADA). Therefore, Defendants
Paxton and York’s motion to dismiss is well-taken, and the Title II claims should
be dismissed to the extent they are pled against Paxton and York.
2
But Lauren filed a “Motion of Addendum” requesting leave to add claims of
libel, defamation, and slander against Paxton and York. Under the procedural
timing of Lauren’s request, the Court finds the request falls under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2) which permits a party to amend a pleading with the Court’s leave. And
Rule 15 requires that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend should be granted to facilitate
resolution of cases on their merits. Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1020
(9th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the Court will grant Lauren’s motion for leave to amend.
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Paxton and
York’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED, and Lauren’s claims under Title II of the
ADA should be DISMISSED only to the extent they are advanced against Paxton
and York.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lauren’s motion for leave to amend is
GRANTED. On or before February 26, 2018, Lauren shall file an amended
pleading restating and setting forth all of his claims he intends to plead against
Defendants. An amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and must be
complete in itself, without incorporating by reference any prior or superseded
pleading. Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.
3
2015); Snyder v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 873 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1155 (D. Ariz.
2012).
DATED this 29th day of January, 2018.
________________________________
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?