Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Randy Dewayne Pittman’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning accessible parking. The court held that Pittman had not clearly shown a likelihood of success on his claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court also screened and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, granting leave to amend by December 1, 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Pittman was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the City to create accessible on-street parking near his apartment or compel his landlord to provide accessible parking.
- Whether Pittman's allegations stated a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Whether Title II required the City to use its regulatory or code-enforcement authority to compel a private landlord to provide accessible parking.
Holdings
- Pittman was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he did not show that the facts and law clearly favored him on the merits of his ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims.
- Title II requires accessibility of a public entity's overall programs and services, not access to every individual facility or a particular location requested by an individual.
- Title II does not require the City to use its regulatory or code-enforcement authority to compel a private landlord to provide accessible parking where the City did not contribute to the alleged private exclusion.
- The complaint failed to state a claim under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and was dismissed with leave to amend.
Key quotations
“Title II prohibits exclusion only from a public entity’s overall programs or services, not from individual facilities.” (Discussion I)
“Title II’s emphasis on ‘program accessibility’ rather than ‘facilities accessibility’ was intended to ensure broad access to public services, while, at the same time, providing public entities with the flexibility to choose how best to make access available.” (Discussion I)
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Mr. Pittman’s motion for a preliminary injunction, screens and dismisses his complaint, and grants him leave to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified above.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Pittman has a breathing impairment that allegedly prevents him from walking more than 200 feet without risk of respiratory distress. He lived in an apartment building in San Jose with four parking spaces, none accessible, while the nearest designated accessible on-street parking was approximately 1,700 feet away. He alleged that the City refused to create an accessible on-street space near his building or require his landlord to provide an accessible space in the building's parking lot.
Procedural history
Pittman sued the City of San Jose and city officials, alleging that the defendants violated Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide or require accessible parking near his apartment. The court denied the preliminary-injunction motion because plaintiff had not shown that the facts and law clearly favored him. On screening, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend by December 1, 2025.