Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Applegate v. CCI

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 25, 2017

BRIAN APPLEGATE, Plaintiff,
v.
CCI, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF NO. 17), FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 16), FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Procedural History

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants California Correctional Institution (“CCI”), the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), California Health Care Services (“CCHCS”), and J. Lewis, in his official capacity, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). (ECF Nos. 11 and 13.)

         Before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) and request for judicial notice (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 20). Defendants filed no reply and the time for doing so has passed. The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

         II. Request for Judicial Notice

         Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of documents filed in a separate action involving Plaintiff, Applegate v. Said, No. 1:16-cv-289-JLT (E.D. Cal.). The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119-20 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). This request will be granted.

         Defendants also ask the Court to take judicial notice of portions of the CDCR Operations Manual and an organizational chart for CCHCS, both of which are available on government websites. The Court may take judicial notice of information on a government website when neither party disputes either the website's authenticity or the accuracy of the information displayed. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 999-00 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of school district's approved vendors publicly displayed on website); see also Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. McPherson, No. C 06-4760 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiff does not contest the authenticity of the cited websites or the accuracy of the information presented. (ECF No. 20.) This request also will be granted.

         III. Plaintiff's Claims

         As stated, the instant case proceeds against CCI, CDCR, CCHCS, and J. Lewis, in his official capacity, for violation of the ADA and RA. The claims arise out of a lack of accommodations provided to Plaintiff during his incarceration at CCI. Very briefly summarized, Plaintiff alleges that he is a “long-standing ADA prisoner” and that the lack of necessary accommodations at CCI prevented him participating in prison programs and services including showering, yard program, and day room use.

         IV. Legal Standard - Motion to Dismiss

         A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court's review is generally limited to the operative pleading. Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). However, courts may properly consider matters subject to judicial notice and documents incorporated by reference in the pleading without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 1986); Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

         To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998. Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

         V. Discussion

         A. Appl ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.