McCright v. Andes

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screened a state prisoner’s second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found cognizable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and deliberate-indifference claims against L. Peters, E. Weaver, and C. Roberts, dismissed the ADA claim and other defendants without leave to amend, ordered service, and established dispositive-motion deadlines.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Peters, Weaver, and Roberts because it alleged a sufficiently serious danger from cellmate attacks and deliberate indifference to that danger.
2. The second amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Peters, Weaver, and Roberts.
3. The ADA claim failed because McCright alleged inadequate treatment or denial of a requested accommodation, not exclusion from a public service, program, or activity by reason of disability.
4. The ADA claim was dismissed without leave to amend because McCright had previously been given an opportunity to amend and failed to cure the identified deficiency.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Peters, Weaver, and Roberts.
2. Whether the second amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claim against Peters, Weaver, and Roberts.
3. Whether the allegations stated a Title II ADA claim based on denial of single-cell status and issuance of a rules violation report.
4. Whether the remaining defendants and previously dismissed due-process claim should remain in the action.

Disposition

other