United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Leslie James Jones is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. ("ADA"). In his first amended complaint ("FAC"), plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at California State Prison-Solano ("CSP-Solano"), the eleven named defendants violated his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the ADA. Among the named defendants is the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Presently before the court is CDCR's motion for dismissal from plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends that defendant CDCR be dismissed from this action.
A. Procedural Background
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his complaint on March 13, 2012. On April 9, 2013, the court screened plaintiff's initial complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) On September 6, 2013, plaintiff filed the operative FAC. (ECF No. 9.)
On March 4, 2014, the court determined that service of the FAC was appropriate on defendants Lieutenant A.Z. Scotland, Sergeant B. Clark, Correctional Officer S. Ringler, Correctional Officer M. Ruiz, Sergeant P.R. Chambers, Correctional Officer T. Doane, Correctional Officer K. McMasters, Lieutenant R.M. Blackwell, Captain T. Wamble, and CDCR. (ECF No. 13.) On May 16, 2014, all defendants except CDCR filed a joint Answer. (ECF No. 16.) On June 10, 2014, defendant CDCR filed the instant motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22.) On July 11, 2014, plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion. (ECF No. 23.) On July 16, 2014, defendant CDCR filed a reply. (ECF No. 25.)
B. Factual Allegations
In his FAC, plaintiff alleges as follows. At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate at CSP-Solano. (ECF No. 9 at 7-8.) The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is his claim that, on May 11, 2010, he was placed in a standing-only holding cage for more than three hours. (Id. at 5.) At the time, plaintiff had a disability, used a cane to walk, had been issued a medical chrono instructing "no prolonged standing, " and was wearing a green vest indicating that his mobility was impaired. (Id.) As a result of being confined in the cage, plaintiff's right leg became severely swollen and painful. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was then forced to walk to administrative segregation without his cane. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff was also denied the use of a bathroom during this entire period despite being on medication for high blood pressure that caused him to need to urinate. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff's allegations regarding defendant CDCR are reproduced, in their entirety, as follows:
Claim C: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Claim Appeal No. SOL-10-00769.
Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, and is a participant in the Disability Placement Program (DPP) with a (1845 disability verification notice) and classified with a medical disability and was issued and wearing a green [Mobility Impaired Disability Vest] on May 11, 2010. Plaintiff was excluded from and denied the services of a public entity (ie) the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation when Plaintiff was denied/Excluded from a medical service. A doctor ordered a service that plaintiff be provided with and use a medical cane because of his disability.
Plaintiffs cane was taken and plaintiff was denied a benefit of a prison service ordered by a medical doctor because of his Handicap. Plaintiff was "Discriminated" against because other inmates with disabilities, and having Dr. ordered canes were not excluded from or denied the use of these Dr. ordered medical appliances as I was! It should also be noted that the "First Level Review", dated August 3, 2010, was denied, stating: "Staff did not violate CDCR policy with respect to "ADA"! But the "second Level review stated: "The Second level review disagrees with the First level review decision, " in that staff did violate CDCR policy, specifically as it relates to Departmental ADA policy for ...