Summary
This United States District Court opinion and order reviews a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting defendants’ motions to dismiss in a pro se civil rights lawsuit. The court overrules the plaintiff’s objections regarding judicial immunity, pleading sufficiency, and alleged factual admissions. Ultimately, the court adopts the magistrate’s findings, dismissing the plaintiff’s ADA, constitutional, and state law claims with or without prejudice based on failures to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity defenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's report should be reviewed de novo and the objections overruled.
- Whether Title II ADA claims may be brought against individual county officials.
- Whether Title II ADA claims may be brought against officials in their official capacities.
- Whether Title V ADA claims are viable absent a viable Title II claim.
- Whether 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, and 1986 claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
- Whether equitable relief claims are barred for lack of a continuing violation.
Holdings
- Individual‑capacity Title II ADA claims against county officials are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because such officials are not subject to personal liability under Title II.
- Official‑capacity Title II ADA claims are dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim because the plaintiff did not allege that the discrimination was by reason of his disability.
- The claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and therefore dismissed.
Key quotations
“The magistrate judge found that (1) plaintiff’s Title V claim could not proceed against defendants in their individual capacities, (2) plaintiff had failed to adequately plead an underlying Title II claim upon which to base the Title V claim, and (3) plaintiff did not plead any facts indicating retaliation.” (at 3)
Factual background
Matthew J. Kerns, a pro se plaintiff with a disability, alleged that Smith County and its judges denied him reasonable accommodations under the ADA and violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, and 1986. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal of all claims.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed pro se claims under 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended granting all three motions. Plaintiff objected to portions of the report; the district court reviewed the objections de novo and adopted the magistrate's recommendations, granting the motions to dismiss.