Benny Rivera v. J. Sheppard ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 17 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BENNY G. RIVERA,                                No. 20-17477
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01255-JAT-DMF
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    J. ADAM SHEPPARD, Sheriff, Gila
    County; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 14, 2021**
    Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Pretrial detainee Benny G. Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his action alleging violations under Title II of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand.
    The district court dismissed Rivera’s ADA claim because Rivera failed to
    allege facts sufficient to show that he was a qualified individual with a disability
    and that defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his
    disability. However, in his original complaint, Rivera alleged that he has a spine
    impairment, and in his second amended complaint, Rivera alleged that he was
    limited in his ability to perform major life activities, such as using the toilet and
    shower unaided, and that defendants discriminated against him by denying him the
    required accommodations. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to
    warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 
    680 F.3d 1113
    , 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); Simmons v. Navajo County, 
    609 F.3d 1011
    , 1021 (9th
    Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angles, 
    833 F.3d 1060
     (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth the elements of an ADA Title II
    claim); see also 
    42 U.S.C. § 12102
    (1)(A) (“The term ‘disability’ means . . . a
    physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
    activities of such individual[.]”); Pierce v. County of Orange, 
    526 F.3d 1190
    , 1196
    (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that physical barriers that denied disabled inmates access
    to prison facilities, such as bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, violated
    the ADA).
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    2                                     20-17477
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-17477

Filed Date: 9/17/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/17/2021