Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied William Allen Garrett’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. The court held that the new complaint, concerning an allegedly unpaid jackpot and adding an ADA discrimination claim, was materially the same as a previously dismissed action and did not overcome sovereign immunity or state a claim. The court also overruled Garrett’s objection concerning sovereign immunity as moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a claim subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
- Whether the newly asserted ADA-discrimination claim altered the prior conclusion that claims against Sycuan Casino and its officials were barred by sovereign immunity.
- Whether amendment would be futile.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
- The new ADA-discrimination claim did not change the court's prior conclusion that the claims against Sycuan Casino and the associated officials were barred by sovereign immunity.
- Amendment would be futile, so dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.
Factual background
Garrett alleged that he won a $2,335 jackpot at Sycuan Casino but was deprived of the winnings. In this action, he asserted due-process and ADA-discrimination claims against Sycuan Casino and associated individuals sued in their official capacities. The allegations substantially repeated those in his earlier dismissed action, with the ADA claim being the principal new cause of action.
Procedural history
Garrett previously filed a related complaint concerning an allegedly unpaid $2,335 jackpot, which the court dismissed with prejudice after screening because Sycuan Casino was entitled to sovereign immunity. Garrett then filed this action concerning the same jackpot and allegations, adding an ADA-discrimination claim. The court concluded that the new claim did not alter the sovereign-immunity analysis, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, found amendment futile, denied the in forma pauperis application, and directed the Clerk to close the case.