Summary
This United States District Court order denies a pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration regarding previous rulings on his in forma pauperis application, request to change judges, and screening order. The court clarifies that a typographical error in the alleged damages amount does not warrant relief and explains that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs. Consequently, the court maintains its prior decisions allowing the plaintiff to proceed under the Rehabilitation Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an in forma pauperis status or fee waiver.
- Whether the court must recuse or change judges at the plaintiff's request.
- Whether a typographical error in the stated damages amount warrants relief.
- Whether the plaintiff's disability discrimination claim should be analyzed under the ADA rather than the Rehabilitation Act.
Holdings
- The motion for fee waiver/IFP is denied because the plaintiff has not shown indigence.
- The request to change the assigned judge is denied because the plaintiff provided no grounds for recusal.
- The typographical error is immaterial and does not warrant any relief.
- The claim is properly analyzed under the Rehabilitation Act; the ADA does not apply to federal agencies.
Key quotations
“A plaintiff is entitled to all damages that he can prove, regardless of whether he pleads the category or amount of those damages.”
Factual background
Kevin Paul Sandgren, a pro se plaintiff, sued Douglas Collins, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, claiming the VA violated federal law by refusing to hire him. He sought monetary damages and filed motions for an in forma pauperis status, a fee waiver, and a change of judge. The court rejected the fee waiver and other procedural dispensations.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging discrimination by the VA and sought fee waiver and other procedural dispensations. The court denied the fee waiver, denied motions for dismissal or summary judgment, and rejected the request to change judge. Plaintiff later filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.