Kawamoto v. Covello

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Darren K. Kawamoto’s motion to amend and screens his third amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court finds a cognizable Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim against CDCR and certain defendants in their official capacities, based on alleged denial of safe and equal access to an administrative segregation exercise yard. The court finds no cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim concerning medical care but gives plaintiff the option to proceed on the ADA claim or file another amended complaint.

Holdings

1. At the screening stage, plaintiff stated a cognizable Title II ADA claim because he adequately alleged that a public-entity facility and related prison activity were inaccessible to him because of his disability and that responsible officials were deliberately indifferent to the resulting risk of discrimination.
2. The Title II ADA claim may proceed against CDCR and the specified individual defendants in their official capacities only; Title II does not permit claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities.
3. Plaintiff did not state a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the medical providers because the allegations and attached grievance documents showed, at most, a disagreement over the appropriate course of treatment.
4. Plaintiff did not state an Eighth Amendment claim against the warden because the complaint alleged no personal participation or sufficient causal connection, and an official-capacity damages claim against a state official is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's allegations that prison facilities were inaccessible to a mobility-impaired inmate stated a cognizable Title II ADA claim.
2. Whether Title II ADA claims could proceed against the individual defendants in their official capacities but not their individual capacities.
3. Whether the allegations concerning pain management stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
4. Whether the claim against the prison warden stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on supervisory liability and official-capacity immunity.
5. Whether plaintiff should be given leave to amend or elect to proceed on the surviving claim.

Disposition

other