Brandy Stokes-Reed v. Noah Nesin, M.D., et al.

Summary

A United States magistrate judge recommends dismissal of Brandy Stokes-Reed’s in forma pauperis complaint against health care providers and related entities. The recommended decision concludes that the complaint fails to state claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. It also recommends that any pending motions, including the request for preliminary injunctive relief, be treated as moot.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims for damages against the individual defendants because individuals are not personally liable under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applies to entities receiving federal financial assistance.
2. The complaint failed to state an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim against the Schmidt Institute because Stokes-Reed did not allege that she sought services or treatment from the Institute, was denied access based on disability, or requested an accommodation from it.
3. The complaint failed to state an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim against St. Joseph Hospital because it challenged the quality or substance of medical treatment rather than unequal access to services.
4. The complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege that the private healthcare providers acted under color of state law.
5. The conspiracy claim failed because the complaint did not allege an underlying deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right by a state actor.
6. The court should dismiss the remaining state-law claims rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendants, the Schmidt Institute, or St. Joseph Hospital.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged refusal by private healthcare providers to prescribe medication above the state-law maximum.
3. Whether the alleged conspiracy claim could proceed absent an underlying constitutional or statutory violation by a state actor.
4. Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims.
5. Whether the complaint and requested preliminary injunction should be dismissed or denied at preliminary review.

Disposition

other