United States District Court, E.D. California
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
MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.)
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
Request for Judicial Notice
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.
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.
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.
Legal Standard - Motion to Dismiss
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).
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).